Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Broadcasting (Vetting of Programmes)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis upon the arrangements made with the broadcasting authorities relating to the vetting of programmes prior to broadcasting.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): This is a matter for the Commissioner. He has informed me that an understanding was recently reached between the Metropolitan Police and the BBC which is designed to ensure that the fullest consultation takes place in the preparation of programmes on potentially sensitive subjects.

Mr. Hooley: Is there any intention to publish the terms of the so-called agree-

ment or code? Is it correct that the Metropolitan Police have vetoed the export of the series "Law and Order"? Will the Home Secretary unequivocally condemn any attempt by any police force to veto, control or censor any programme on the BBC?

Mr. Whitelaw: It should be made perfectly clear that the final editorial responsibility for any programme on this or any other matter rests with the BBC, and must continue to do so.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have every sympathy with the police in this matter, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will view with considerable apprehension any development or extension of such arrangements?

Mr. Whitelaw: Of course, I appreciate that. Needless to say, it would not apply to straightforward current affairs features on police work. It could apply only, as I understand it, to a particular programme to which the police had been invited to make a contribution.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that, in effect, is exactly what the BBC has said that it would not allow? It does not allow political censorship, quite rightly, and it is extremely dangerous that the Metropolitan Police should even imagine that they have a role to play in this matter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Whitelaw: As regards current affairs and news programmes, I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. Where any organisation is asked to make a specific contribution to a programme, surely it has a right to take part in consultation and discussion.

Police (Cash Limits)

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if police departments will be subject to cash limits.

Mr. Whitelaw: The specific grant to police authorities of 50 per cent. of approved police expenditure is not cash limited.

Mr. Marks: Is the Home Secretary aware that it will not be much use spending more money on the police if there are cuts in those services which help to prevent crime, particularly among


young people? Will he urge his colleagues at the Departments of the Environment, Education and Science, and Health and Social Security not to force cuts on such services as school welfare and those dealing with one-parent families?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall have consultations with my colleagues on these matters. The Government's law and order programme has a high priority. I am determined to ensure that that continues.

Mr. Crowther: In the light of that answer, will the Home Secretary also assure us that no cash limits will be imposed on other aspects of the law and order programme, such as the probation and after-care service and the operation of the magistrates' courts?

Mr. Whitelaw: There are different arrangements for those matters. I shall certainly regard the law and order programme as a whole and consider those other services on the basis that they are an integral part of it.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that adequate resources are available for the recruitment of special constables, particularly in the Metropolitan area, where police are drafted in from the outer districts, such as Hillingdon, to stop demonstrations and so on in the centre of the city?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not know of any occasions when the resources for the recruitment of special constables are not available. I shall be pleased to hear from hon. Members about such occasions if they can tell me of any. Special constables have a particularly important role to play, and the House should encourage that voluntary effort by them.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the election campaign repeated assurances were given that there would be no cuts in spending on the police? Will he give a categorical assurance that there will be no cuts, either in the Home Office's direct contribution or in the rate support grant to the local authorities as it affects the police?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot guarantee what the local police authorities will decide to do. But I shall urge them to maintain their expenditure on the main-

tenance of law and order, and I shall give them every encouragement to do so.

Schoolchildren (Remand)

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to end the remand of schoolchildren to prisons and remand centres.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): The Government endorse the principle that juveniles on remand should not be detained in prison department establishments. We are considering what the next step should be towards further reducing the number of such remands.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, instead of his concentrating on increasing the number of detention centres or introducing the so-called short, sharp shock treatment, it would be wiser for him and his Department to concentrate on ending this blight of sending innocent children to prison?

Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that changes in the treatment of offenders on the lines indicated by the hon. Gentleman are in any way inconsistent with furthering the goal that we all share, which is to stop the remanding of schoolchildren to prisons and remand centres.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Minister agree that the Harmondsworth detention centre is a most unsuitable place in which to detain young children? Does the Home Office have any view on the ending of that practice?

Mr. Brittan: As I have said, the Home Office considers it quite wrong that any schoolchildren should be remanded in prison or remand centre. Steps have already been taken regarding, girls, and we are considering, in consultation with the local authorities, moves in respect of 14-year-old boys.

Punishment

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to the subject of alternatives to imprisonment as a form of punishment.

Mr. Brittan: We are considering how the existing wide range of non-custodial


penalties can best be maintained and improved as well as examining any fresh suggestions which are put forward for alternatives to imprisonment.

Mr. Evans: In view of the situation in our overcrowded prisons, will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider proposing radical alternatives to imprisonment as a method of preventing further crime? Will his Department consider discussing with the Lord Chancellor advising magistrates' courts to use the suspended sentence where appropriate, and will it review the list of offences which now lead to imprisonment with a view to establishing radical alternatives?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree that, in view of the overcrowding in prisons, any measures which can be taken which would lead to people who ought not to be in prison being treated in a different way are worthy of the most serious consideration. In particular, the proposals of the Expenditure Committee are being considered. I think that we should continue to look at the whole range of alternatives which now exist, seek to expand them where possible, and also look at any fresh ones which may become available.

Mr. Aitken: Will my hon. and learned Friend give special consideration to introducing weekend prisons into our penal system? Is he aware that this is an effective form of punishment, that it costs a great deal less in public expenditure than the present cost of keeping a man in prison—which I believe to be more than £100 a week—and that it has worked very well in New Zealand and Scandinavia?

Mr. Brittan: The resource implications of doing that have yet to be studied in full, but it is one of the proposals under examination.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that one of the best alternatives to prison is still that provided by the probation service? Further, is he aware that many probation officers now consider that they are in a second-class service and are being so treated by the present Government? Will he put his prestige behind the probation service, in contrast to the attitude expressed in some of the more primeval grunts about law and order which come from his own Back Benches?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that anyone doubts the importance of the probation service, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government fully recognise the valuable role which it has to play.

Parliamentary Boundary Commissions

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans in the criteria that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission must consider under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, in relation to alteration of parliamentary constituencies in England; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brittan: A number of suggestions have been put forward for changing the way reviews are conducted, and these are being considered. It would, however, be undesirable to change the rules governing the present review as this could only delay its completion.

Mr. Madel: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that in its report of 1969 the Boundary Commission drew attention to the fact that it was not required by the rules to pay attention to future population movement? As what the commission is now doing is based on the 1976 electoral register, and as there have been and will be population movements between 1976 and the next general election, should not the rules be changed so that the commission must have regard to future population movements?

Mr. Brittan: The commission has indicated that in the present review it is taking account of population changes to the extent that that is possible. Whether it be necessary to give any statutory force to that in respect of future reviews is a question which we shall have to consider. But I think that what everyone ought to be anxious to achieve above all is that the present review is completed as early as may be, so that the existing disparities between constituencies can be removed as far as possible.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Now that the present review is well under way, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will exert absolutely no pressure on the Boundary Commissions either with regard to the statutory criteria which


they have to observe or, equally important, in the timing of their reports to the Home Secretary?

Mr. Brittan: The Government fully recognise and appreciate the independence of the Boundary Commissions, but if we can assist them in carrying out their task and ensure that the review is completed in reasonable time, that is something we should look at sympathetically.

Mr. W. Benyon: When does my hon. and learned Friend think he will be able to lay the recommendations of the Boundary Commission before Parliament? Secondly, does he agree that, even if we were to get back to the 10-year period laid down in the Act, that is totally inadequate for a constituency such as mine with a very rapid rate of growth?

Mr. Brittan: I hope that the Boundary Commission will be in a position to present its report by mid-1982. As to the second point raised by my hon. Friend, there is always a conflict here. On the one hand, if the reviews are too frequent, there is an element of disruption, while, on the other hand, if they are too infrequent, constituencies become either too big or too small. In considering whether any changes are necessary for future reviews, one will have to decide how to balance those two considerations.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Minister gave his view on the independence of the Boundary Commission and any changes which it recommends. Will he therefore accept that any parliamentary boundary changes which are made are the result of consideration conducted by commissioners who both before and after their appointment have no contact whatsoever with any political party, but, like Caesar's wife, are above suspicion? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that if they were to get themselves involved in that way, any report which they put before the House would have to go back and we should have to start again?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that it is essential that the independence of the Boundary Commission should be maintained.

Obscenity

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive

the Williams committee's report on obscenity.

Mr. Brittan: Towards the end of this year.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. and learned Friend take it that publication of the report is eagerly awaited? May we have an assurance that, as soon as it is in the hands of the Home Office, no great time will be allowed to elapse before legislation is introduced to make some sense out of the muddle and tangle of laws which at present cover pornography and indecent displays, in order to bring them into line with a proper sense of morality?

Mr. Brittan: The first step necessary after publication of the committee's report is to consider carefully what it says and the reactions of interested people, and thereafter, in the light of that, to consider what legislation, if any, is required to deal with the present position in law.

Mr. Allan Roberts: While awaiting publication of the report, will the Minister investigate the growing practice of police constables and police forces raiding book shops and impounding publications but then not following up those raids with prosecutions? Does he agree that, if a police force raids a book shop and takes away publications, it should prosecute or quickly return the publications?

Mr. Brittan: I am not sure that I necessarily agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am not entirely clear whether he wants more prosecutions or the books back.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that our hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) is seeking to introduce a Private Member's Bill very similar to the Indecent Displays (Control) Bill which was frustrated during the term of office of the last Labour Government. May we have a promise that he will give that Bill a fair wind?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that it will come as a surprise to my hon. Friend to know that I personally view that form of legislation with considerable sympathy. I think that there is a difference, in that, whereas in the last Session the prospect of the Williams committee reporting


was rather distant, the report is now to come very soon, and the House will have to consider whether it is wise to legislate in advance of it.

Liquor Licensing

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce measures to implement the Erroll committee's report on liquor licensing.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): We have at present no plans to introduce legislation on this subject.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the Scottish licensing laws were liberalised in 1976 there has been a sharp decline in convictions for drunkenness, while convictions for drunkenness in England and Wales have increased? Does he accept that that is a powerful argument for liberalising the English and Welsh licensing laws on the lines suggested by the Erroll committee?

Mr. Raison: I cannot comment on the Scottish position. However, the fact that offences of drunkenness have increased, especially among young people, is causing a great deal of concern. I am not persuaded that the public will believe that the right answer is necessarily to change the licensing laws.

Mr. Crowther: Does the Minister understand that our licensing laws make us the laughing stock of the world, and are especially frustrating to the tourist industry? Is it not wise that we should at least move into the twentieth century before the twenty-first century arrives?

Mr. Raison: It is a subject on which there are conflicting views. It would be right to have a greater measure of consensus before we moved to legislation.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that many friends in Burton-upon-Trent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will want to drink my right hon. Friend's good health in the local product on the occasion of his birthday today, and that they would be much happier and would drink with greater cheer if the Government showed some determination to relieve the burden of an oppressive

licensing system that is many years out of date?

Mr. Raison: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will wish to thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The Government's mind is not completely closed, but we are not persuaded at present that legislation would be appropirate.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister confirm that before any legislation was embarked upon there should be the widest consultation with all those involved, such as members of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, who would be greatly concerned about any rush to change the legislation? Does he agree that there is public concern about the amount of drink consumed in Britain? Will he do anything about the application of the Blennerhassett report about the great problems of drinking and driving?

Mr. Raison: The Blennerhassett report is not a matter for the Home Office. However, I shall bear in mind the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I shall, of course, consider any representations that are made to my Department.

Asian Community

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet leaders of the Asian community now living in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Raison: I have already received a number of requests for such meetings and I am looking forward to seeing representatives of the Asian community in the coming months.

Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will now be aware of the deep concern within the Asian community about the suggested changes in immigration law. At a time when race relations are of crucial importance, how will the introduction of the register and stopping the entry of dependent relatives of husbands do anything to make the Asian community feel that legislation is not being introduced against it and no other section of the community? Will he bear that in mind before any discussions take place?

Mr. Raison: I accept the crucial importance of good race relations, which our proposals are designed to enhance. I


suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits details of our proposals. We shall bring them forward as soon as possible.

Mr. Marlow: When my hon. Friend is considering immigration procedures, will he give the fullest weight to the views, interests and concerns of the indigenous population, which has been forgotten about for far too long?

Mr. Raison: A good, sound race relations policy will command support in all sections of the community, and that is what we shall be seeking.

Mr. Torney: When the Minister meets the Asian community, will he explain why young Asian children are being sent from Heathrow to Harmondsworth detention centre, where there are no facilities, as I know personally, to look after young children? Will he take action to stop that inhuman practice?

Mr. Raison: We have no desire to see young children kept at Harmondsworth. However, occasionally there seems to be no alternative. In the eight weeks since the general election 49 children have been detained at Harmondsworth against 66 in the corresponding period in 1978 when the Labour Government were in office.

Mr. Torney: That does not make it right.

Prisoners

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an independent investigation into recent allegations of police ill-treatment of prisoners whilst in custody.

Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir. The law already provides that the report of an investigating officer into a complaint against the police must, unless it is clear that no criminal offence has been committed, be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his independent consideration of the criminal aspects and must in every case be sent to the Police Complaints Board for its independent consideration of the disciplinary aspects.

Mr. Meacher: Following the death of three men held in Northumbrian police stations—Liddell Towers, Norman Barr and Ronald Blair—does the right hon. Gentleman accept that where a pattern of brutality has been shown to exist from a series of examples the police complaints

procedure, or internal reporting by senior police officers, is inadequate? Will he use his powers under section 32 of the Police Act 1964 to set up an independent public inquiry into these deaths?

Mr. Whitelaw: Without commenting on the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, I must say that the House deliberately enacted the 1964 Act to provide an independent element of inquiry into police complaints. I believe that the system works. If it is not working, the opportunities under section 8 are available, especially for major cases. We must proceed in accordance with the independent element of inquiry, which we deliberately set up for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Christopher Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is deep concern about the matter throughout the House? Is he aware that many of the complaints about ill-treatment in custody concern ill-treatment during interrogation? Does he accept that the introduction of tape recordings into police interviews in police stations would get rid even of the need to make complaints? If the, Royal Commission recommends that, will he agree now to introduce that system?

Mr. Whitelaw: First, we must wait to see what the Royal Commission recommends. As have said, we set up an independent element of inquiry into the police. I. should work, and I believe that it will work if it is given the opportunity.

Model Aircraft

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the London borough of Hillingdon seeking approval of a new byelaw permitting the banning of the flying of model aircraft in certain areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Raison: The borough council first put forward proposals for such a byelaw in March last year. Subsequent correspondence between the council and the Home Office has not resulted in agreement, but my officials are seeking to arrange an early meeting with the council to attempt to resolve the matter, and I have also offered to discuss the problem with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the high-pitched whine of the tiny engines powering model aircraft poses intolerable problems for my constituents who want to get some peace and quiet during weekends? Will he do his best to reach agreement with the Hillingdon council as quickly as possible so that a compromise arrangement may be reached whereby model aircraft fliers enjoy their recreation while residents get some peace and quiet?

Mr. Raison: I am aware that model aircraft cause a considerable nuisance. However, the issue is whether there should he a total ban applying in all parks in the borough. That needs further discussion.

Murderers

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding his policy concerning the transfer of convicted murderers to open prisons

Mr. Brittan: No prisoner serving a sentence for life imprisonment, whether for murder or any other crime, is transferred to an open prison unless, after the most careful consideration, it is considered that he or she will not present a further risk to the community In addition, such a person will be transferred to an open prison only if the regime of an open prison is judged likely to assist in the preparation for ultimate release into the community.

Mr. Brotherton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is considerable concern about the transfer of Mary Bell to the Askham Grange open prison? Does he agree that there are many convicted murderers who must never be released from custody?

Mr. Brittan: I am aware of what has been said about Mary Bell. It may help if I set out the position. Following recent consideration of Mary Bell's case by the previous Home Secretary, it was decided provisionally on the recommendation of the Parole Board that Mary Bell should be released next year, subject to continued good behaviour, satisfactory completion of a period in an open prison, a period in the pre-release employment scheme and no change in the assessment of risk. In making that decision, the right

hon. Gentleman directed that the final decision as to what should be done should be taken by the Home Secretary of the day. That decision will now fall to my right hon. Friend, who will make it in the light of all the relevant considerations, including, above all, the assessment of risk.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that not all murderers should be treated alike? A significant number of murders occur in a family context and, in the nature of the circumstances, the individual is not likely to commit a further similar offence. In the circumstances, it is proper and appropriate for such persons to be transferred to open prisons and rehabilitated within the community.

Mr. Brittan: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Mellor: Is my hon. and learned Friend prepared to review the mandatory life sentence for murder? Is he aware that life sentences have a yawning credibility gap with the public? In view of the average term served by people sentenced to life imprisonment, is not it time for judges to be able to pass determinate sentences in suitable cases?

Mr. Brittan: There is a vast range of situations in which judges may pass determinate sentences. However, I am not persuaded that there is not a proper need for the existing life imprisonment sentence as well.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful to the Minister for accurately stating—as he always would—the facts of the Mary Bell case, which came to the public eye and was raised on the Floor of the House. Would it not be better now for the case of this young girl to be left alone by us for the next year or 18 months so that we can do our best to rehabilitate her into the community?

Mr. Brittan: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that no useful purpose is served by the public discussion of the circumstances of individual cases.

Citizens' Band Radio

Mrs. Fenner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he is making in his consideration of the introduction of citizens' band radio; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to announce the Government's policy on the introduction of citizens' band radio into Great Britain.

Mr. Raison: I have already indicated that the question of the introduction of citizens' band radio is under review. It is too early to say when we shall be able to draw firm conclusions.

Mrs. Fenner: I compliment my hon. Friend on pursuing the pledge that we made during the election campaign. However, I must express my disappointment that it is taking rather a long time. I seek my hon. Friend's reassurance that the delay has bona fide reasons and is not part of the renowned reluctance of his Department to live with the innovation of free-enterprise radio.

Mr. Raison: I gently say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that eight weeks is a long time in which to consider a matter that is as complicated as this. I assure her that our consideration of the subject is absolutely genuine.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Minister aware that there is a considerable danger of a clash of interest between those who want citizens' band radio and those who fly model aircraft? Will he ensure that the views of the model aircraft enthusiasts are taken fully into account before he introduces citizens' band radio?

Mr. Raison: I confess that I had not thought of that aspect. I suggest that tripartite talks should take place between my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), the hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner).

Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are many ramifications of passing into law the right to have citizens' band radio? Does he also accept that the Home Office was reluctant to encourage Ministers to take that step? Will he provide the reassurance requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) that his investigation is genuine and will end with a proper conclusion?

Mr. Raison: It is not for me to comment on the policy of the Home Office under a previous Administration. However, I assure my hon. Friend, as I as-

sured my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner), that we are genuinely considering this matter with an open mind.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister take into account the fact that there is evidence that citizens' band radio could interfere with the use of radio by the essential services? Indeed, it would be extremely dangerous. There is already some evidence to that effect.

Mr. Raison: It is fairly widely agreed that on 27 MegaHertz there are problems of the kind to which the hon. Lady referred. We are wondering whether there are other ways of approaching this matter.

Mr. Butcher: Is my hon. Friend aware that the all-party committee on citizens' band radio recommended that we use the waveband now being vacated by the 405-line television transmissions? That would not interfere with emergency services or model aircraft. Is my hon. Friend further aware that citizens' band radio saves approximately 2,000 lives per annum in the United States and that 13 European countries already have citizens' band radio?

Mr. Raison: Those are exactly the kinds of considerations at which we shall look in our review.

Special Patrol Group

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the activities of the special patrol group; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police over the role of the special patrol group.

Mr. Snape: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will discuss with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police the abolition of the special patrol group.

Mr. Whitelaw: I refer the hon. Members to the statement that I made yesterday on the Southall disturbances.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that a private investigation into the activities of the special patrol group is totally unsatisfactory? Does he realise that we need a full, public and open inquiry into this matter to establish the truth about, say, the Daily Mirror story which suggested that a lead-filled cosh was found in the locker of an officer of the special patrol group, a cosh which was not dissimilar to the kinds of instruments described in the leading pathologist's report on the death of Blair Peach? Why does not the Minister deliver a short, sharp sentence to the special patrol group and disband it?

Mr. Whitelaw: First, some of the matters which the hon. Gentleman raised clearly come into the investigation by Commander Cass, which will go to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the coroner. Therefore, it would be quite improper for me to comment any further on those. In general, over a period of time, the special patrol group has made an important contribution to the fight against crime. I believe that that will certainly continue. It was right that the Commissioner decided to examine its work. He will do that. I believe he will find that the group will continue to have an important contribution to make in the future.

Mr. Winnick: Is not it important for the public to have confidence in all sections of the police force? Is it not a serious matter when the special patrol group clearly does not enjoy that degree of confidence? Is the Home Secretary aware that there is a strongly-held view that members of the special patrol group have a hostile attitude towards the trade union and labour movement?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is an unreasonable statement which the hon. Gentleman can in no way substantiate with facts. I return to the major point. The special patrol group in recent times has made a large number of arrests which were extremely important in the battle against crime. The group should be congratulated on, and supported for, its effort.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not my right hon. Friend occasionally become a little sick and tired of the vendetta that is pursued by some, though not all, members of the Opposition against this group of the London police? Does not he

agree that if it were not for the activities of the special patrol group in London many more elderly and weak people would be persecuted, many more immigrants would be terrorised, and many more law breakers would be able to break the law again and again?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is no part of my business to become sick and tired of criticisms of any kind over anything for which I may be responsible, provided that they are justified and wise. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the value of the special patrol group's work.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister accept that there is a tremendous gulf between the coloured community and the police generally, especially the special patrol group? Does he accept that most of us here are not paid by the police? Unlike most Members of Parliament, I personally witnessed the special patrol group constantly in action at Grunwick. I was appalled by what I saw. I abhor violence. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as a result of the great gap between the group and the coloured community, any inquiry by the police into their own conduct is no longer acceptable? Therefore, why is he afraid of a public inquiry, instead of the police inquiring into their own conduct?

Mr. Whitelaw: If, as a result of his experience at any time, the hon. Gentleman has specific complaints to make against the police, it is proper that he should lodge them with the chief constable involved—

Mr. Flannery: I informed my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, but he did nothing.

Mr. Whitelaw: —in this case the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The Commissioner made very clear, as I announced yesterday, that he was doing his best, and would continue to do his best, to improve relations between the police and ethnic minority groups, and would commit further resources to that.
I come back again and again to what I have said—that this House set up deliberately, by an Act of Parliament, an independent inquiry procedure under the Police Complaints Board. It should be used as this House meant it to be used. I wish that it were more widely used and accepted by some Labour Members.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a widespread feeling among the general public that anyone who takes part in an affray in which 97 police officers are injured has only himself to blame for the consequences?

Mr. Whitelaw: One must obviously regret any disorders. But there is no doubt that, as the Commissioner's report said yesterday, some of the people who came into Southall from outside appeared to be bent on a confrontation with the police.

Criminal Responsibility

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of the Home Department if he has any plans to alter the age of criminal responsibility.

Mr. Britian: No, Sir.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Is the Minister fully aware of the considerable enforcement difficulties that the police have with the under-10s? Is he further aware that there is a very good example of the problem in that in 1977, in the Metropolitan Police area, no fewer than 675 under-10s were arrested for crimes of violence and, believe it or not, for taking and driving away motor vehicles? In contrast with the last Government, will this Government at least look into the matter and possibly do something about it?

Mr. Brittan: I shall be happy to look into the matter. I am very conscious of the fact that, sadly, children under the age of 10 commit offences. My hon. Friend will also take account of the fact that, when a child under 10 is brought before the juvenile court on the ground that he is in moral danger or outside parental control, the court may make the appropriate order and a care order, and that if a prosecution were brought in relation to a similar series of events the consequences and outcome would in most cases be broadly similar.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Minister bear in mind that Parliament took a decision in 1969 that the age of criminal responsibility should progressively rise to 14? Whatever might or might not be done about that, may we, in the light of the original question, have an assurance that there is no question of

the Government's initiating any proposal to reduce the age of criminal responsibility from what it is now?

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I can usefully add to the answer I have already given on that very point.

Taxi Regulations

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the regulations governing the operation of taxis.

Mr. Raison: I have not been made aware of any widespread dissatisfaction with the regulations.

Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister aware that the drivers and conductors of public service vehicles quite rightly have the protection of law against offensive conduct by passengers and that taxi drivers also wish to have that protection? Will the Home Office give approval to byelaws which are put forward by local authorities to give just that protection?

Mr. Raison: I am advised that it would be ultra vires for a local authority to make byelaws regulating the conduct of passengers in taxicabs, since it is a matter which is outside the scope of the general taxi law. I believe that the existing general criminal law provisions are adequate to deal with this important problem.

Mr. Mike Thomas: As the Minister is directly responsible only for London taxis, will he explain the continuing illogicality of that position? Will he hand over responsibility for London taxis to the Greater London Council, in common with other local authorities? If he is not to do that, will he consider providing hon. Members with some form of disguise with which to leave this building so that they are not abused about the results of the Government's policies?

Mr. Raison: We have at present no plans to hand over the regulation of London taxis. As to the matter of disguise, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can look after himself.

European Election (Essex South West)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the operation of section 79 of the Representation of the


People Act 1949 in respect of the European election in the light of the nondelivery of election addresses and other material in parts of Essex South West European constituency.

Mr. Brittan: Yes, Sir. I regret any particular difficulties that may have occurred, but the operation of section 79 of the Act has been generally satisfactory.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. and learned Friend the Minister aware that in Waltham Abbey and elsewhere whole sacks of election addresses were left undelivered? Is this not contrary to statutory obligation? Is it not an obstruction of democracy? What redress is there for those people who have lost time and money and not had their election addresses delivered?

Mr. Brittan: What occurred on that occasion is a matter of great regret. It was a serious matter, in that 60,000 election addresses and 140,000 poll cards were not delivered although they were handed in by the local authorities and the political parties in time. Whether any legal redress or consequences flow from that would have to be explored in the courts, if at all.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Would it not be better if the regulations governing the free post of election addresses—which, under the 1949 Act, were originally to be made by the Postmaster-General, a Minister answerable to this House, and are now made by the Post Office—were again to be made by a Minister?

Mr. Brittan: I am not sure whether that would be practicable or desirable in view of the changes in the organisation and running of the Post Office which have taken place since.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Viggers: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is attending the economic summit in Tokyo.

Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance today to read the press

reports about the German tanker "Tarpenbek" which, after a collision, is floating upside down on the Sussex coast with a cargo of 1,500 tons of oil? Is he aware of the alarm that this causes? Do the Government intend to intervene, under section 12 of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971? More generally, will my right hon. Friend state whether he is satisfied that the Government have all the powers and facilities they need to ensure that these threats can be fought, and that compensation can be paid where appropriate?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have had the opportunity and I would seek to give my hon. Friend the detailed reply which I think, in view of the very proper concern which exists, he would wish to have.
The Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 confers very wide powers on the Secretary of State to intervene in oil pollution emergencies, whether inside our territorial waters or on the high seas. Although we believe that our powers are very largely sufficient, the underlying international agreement relating to intervention on the high seas is currently under review in the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation.
There have been meetings which have decided that on the best advice available it was right for the "Tarpenbek" to be towed to Sandown Bay and there to have her cargo pumped out. The first part of that operation has already started

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister in Tokyo three points arising out of the OPEC price increase? The first is the urgent need for a world energy conference to bring together the oil producers, the consumers, and the non-oil countries. The second is the need to ensure that the oil companies do not exploit the increase at the expense of the consumers, as has happened before. Thirdly, will the Prime Minister reject those pressures, which are now evident, that the Western industrialised countries should deflate still further at a time when the increase in prices could provide work for them to meet the demand now coming from OPEC?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that the price rise is a very serious matter for the Western nations. It is therefore very proper


that it is at present being discussed by the leaders in Tokyo. I will ensure that the views of the right hon. Gentleman are conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

Sir Paul Bryan: Will my right hon. Friend find time in his programme today to see the Secretary of State for Energy and to ask him to put pressure on the oil companies to improve their distribution of farm fuel oil in the countryside? Is he aware that, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, distributors who are supplied by the Texaco company have had their supplies reduced by 30 per cent., and that these are the supplies on which the farms depend? If the position does not improve over the coming months, farmers will find themselves in a critical position at harvest time.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I know from my own constituency responsibilities, this is a very serious matter in our country districts, particularly in the North of England. I undertake to speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The Government are determined to ensure that proper supplies of fuel are available to our farmers at this very important time of the year.

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

Mr. Goodlad: When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister returns from Japan, will my right hon. Friend discuss with her the report by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the Southall disturbance? Does she agree that the vast majority of people in the Asian community showed great courage and forbearance by not reacting to the provocation of the National Front, and great shrewdness in not allowing themselves to be exploited by other extremist minorities? Will he reassure the House that the Government will give their support to the Commissioner in his attempts to improve relations between the police and the ethnic minority community in Southall, so that public confidence in the impar-

tiality of the police, which they so richly deserve, can be restored?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has given me an opportunity to repeat what I said to the House yesterday about the developments in Southall. The Commissioner is determined to improve the community relations work of the police with the ethnic minority groups. I hope that the Commissioner will be given every encouragement and help from members of all parties in the House.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Prime Minister's statement in Tokyo about the need for a swift expansion of the nuclear industry is causing some concern? Will he confirm that the Government's policy is, or should be, to make sure that every Government Department produces practical proposals for conserving energy?

Mr. Whitelaw: Whilst accepting that it is important to conserve energy, I should have thought that in the current circumstances facing the Western world, and this country in particular, the proposal regarding nuclear energy was both common sense and prudent.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In the absence of the Prime Minister, has my right hon. Friend any plans to meet the chairman of the Post Office to see what can be done to bring some order out of the present chaos in our postal services? May I press on him the thought that, whilst mail is being delivered in such a haphazard way, the idea of first-class and second-class mail might be discontinued, at least in the interim?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. This is a very serious matter. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, whose departmental responsibility this is, is in close touch with the chairman of the Post Office.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Wih reference to the question on petrol and oil deliveries, does the right hon. Gentleman realise what trouble he is in? How will he explain to the Prime Minister, on her return from Tokyo, that in her absence he has abandoned the policy of nonintervention in the free market?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall have no difficulty in doing that. I thought that what I said was, once again, simple common sense and prudence.

Mr. Whitney: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her engagements for Thursday 28 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

Mr. Whitney: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to discuss with the Prime Minister the possibilities of bringing home to the OPEC leaders the disastrous effect the remorseless rises in the price of oil will have on the world economy and in particular on developing countries, and also the long-term effects on the interests of the OPEC countries themselves?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that this is one of the matters which my right hon. Friend is presently discussing in Tokyo with other leaders of the Western world.

Mr. Winnick: As the Government's policies and certainly the Budget have proved so unpopular, would it not be in the best interests of the Conservative Party if the right hon. Gentleman were to take over the leadership of his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should regard that as a disastrous development.

Mr. Michael Morris: When he mentions the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) about the working of the Post Office, will my right hon. Friend suggest to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the time has come to call in the chairmen of all the nationalised industries so that she may point out to them that their purpose is to serve the public and that the public are fed up with the services that they are getting from British Aerospace and other nationalised industries, and not least London airport?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not wish to be drawn on to too general a point by my hon. Friend. Clearly what he has said

about the importance of the nationalised industries and their work is right. I shall certainly call the attention of my right hon. Friend to what he has said.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? In the interests of this country, provided we still had a Tory Government, at some stage it might not be such a disastrous development.

Mr. Whitelaw: I should be very surprised if that day ever came.

Mr. Newens: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

Mr. Newens: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there has yet been any consideration of the extent to which the flow of refugees from Indo-China, in particular Kampuchea, has in part been fuelled by the tremendous economic dislocation there, caused by years of war, natural disaster and political upheaval? Are the Government still utterly and completely opposed to supplying aid and relief to those who are suffering great distress on the spot? Would not such an attitude be completely inhuman and comparable with the attitude previously adopted by those who refused to condemn the escalation of previous wars in Indo-China?

Mr. Whitelaw: We must all accept that much of the present difficulty regarding refugees in South-East Asia stems from the extremely inhumane and disastrous attitude of the Vietnamese Government. It is important to recognise that, I hope that the whole House and the world will do so, as the leaders of the Western world are at present doing in Tokyo.

Mr. Latham: On that same point, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Mr. Kosygin did she take the opportunity to stress to him that the Russian puppet in Vietnam should accept its international responsibilities?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend certainly discussed the matter with Mr. Kosygin and made the position of the British Government abundantly clear.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the tremendous number of price increases that have taken place under this Government, particularly as a result of the Budget, will the right hon. Gentleman consider reappointing a Cabinet Minister to be responsible for prices and consumer protection? In view of the further leap in petrol prices, will the Government seriously think about withdrawing the 10p tax increase?

Mr. Whitelaw: Without being too unkind to the right hon. Gentleman who was Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should raise such a matter in view of the record of his own Government with regard to price increases during their period of office, and, indeed, of their legacy to this Government after the election.

Mr. Forman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister returns to this country, to convey to her the strong support of many of us on these Benches for the Government's determination to cut back on the number of quangos, which are seen by everybody as a legacy and a hallmark of bureaucratic Socialism? Will my right hon. Friend continue his efforts to cut hack vigorously in that redundant area?

Mr. Whitelaw: I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear what he has said about the Government's determination to proceed on that course.

Miss Joan Lestor: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister is out of the country and that the Prime Minister of Zambia is visiting this country, will the

right hon. Gentleman tell the House what arrangements he has made for someone to see the Prime Minister of Zambia so that the latter may convey to the Government the consternation of Zambia and other African countries about any possibility of the present regime in Southern Rhodesia being offered recognition by this country?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly make sure that I am in close touch with my noble Friend Lord Carrington, who is in charge of the Foreign Office.

Mr. Lawrence: If it should become impossible to send letters and parcels through the post because we cannot get postage stamps, will there be any reasonable alternative to relieving the Post Office of its monopoly?

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that the situation will not arise.

Mr. Mike Thomas: On the subject of quangos, has the right hon. Gentleman considered the cries of anguish that would emerge from his own party hacks if what is proposed were to come about?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means when he refers to "party hacks".

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have time today to receive a telegram from this House congratulating her on so far avoiding the fate of comrade Brezhnev in that she has not yet been kissed by President Carter? While she is considering this new love affair, will she also have time to consider the implications for the defence of Western Europe of the agreement that is being ratified between President Carter and comrade Brezhnev?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it is very important that this country should preserve good relations with the United States of America. I am sure that relations between President Carter and my right hon. Friend will be reinforced by their contact and discussions in Tokyo.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the travesty of Prime Minister's Question Time which has occurred today, in that the same


question has been put five times, will you enjoin hon. Members to put a greater variety of and more imaginative questions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order gives me an opportunity to remind hon. Members who came to the House for the first time at the last election that open questions to the Prime Minister were accepted on a wide scale in the previous Parliament because the House felt that the Prime Minister was able to transfer questions. This does not apply to other Ministers. If hon. Members look in Hansard they will discover that on two occasions I gave a ruling that if an open question was addressed to any other Minister I would not call the hon. Member to ask a supplementary question. I can do nothing to alter the questions that hon. Members table.

Mr. Bidwell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not the problem be overcome if priority were given to specific questions to the Prime Minister which could not be shunted off to another Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the House would soon show indignation if the Prime Minister—or any other Minister—were able to decide which questions she would answer. However, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion has been heard by those responsible for the Order Paper, which is not entirely my responsibility.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 JULY—Motions on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order and on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order.
TUESDAY 3 JULY, WEDNESDAY 4 JULY and THURSDAY 5 JULY—Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
At the end on Thursday 5 July, motion on the St. Vincent Termination of Association Order.
FRIDAY 6 JULY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 9 JULY—Further progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: The Leader of the House has heard the exchanges this afternoon. Does he accept the necessity for the Secretary of State for Energy, early next week, to make a full statement in the House both on the distribution of oil products and on the impact of the latest decisions of the OPEC countries, so that industry, farming and the private consumer may know the Government's conclusion and what proposals they have, if any, for meeting the situation?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Industry, if he is in charge of Post Office affairs, to make a statement on what is happening in that area, so that commercial and private business is not unduly interrupted?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has made a statement on the oil question, but I shall convey to him the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition.
As for the situation in the Post Office, we are very concerned about recent developments there, and I shall certainly pass on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Leader of the House give any information on the production of the daily Hansard?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am concerned about the production of the daily Hansard, and also about the Order Paper. This is due to an industrial dispute. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department is seeing the parties concerned this afternoon, and I am hopeful that this essential service will soon be restored to the House.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Leader of the House find time to discuss the whole procedure at Prime Minister's Question Time? This seems to have become a real farce, not necessarily in terms of the answers that we are getting—they are not the fault of the Leader of the House—but in terms of the formula for asking


questions which are time-wasting and which give the House less chance of questioning the Prime Minister. Would it not be better to simplify the procedure?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend any reflection on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I am aware of the concern in the House at the development in Prime Minister's Question Time, which has occurred under a number of Prime Ministers. I am aware, too, that there is a feeling in the House that it would be better for the House, for hon. Members, and also for the Prime Minister, if there could be a change in practice, with perhaps more direct questions. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Bevan: In view of the imminent threat to the nation's lifeline by virtue of stamps not being available through the Post Office—we are told that as a result of certain action the supply of stamps in London will dry up in three days, and in the provinces shortly—will my right hon. Friend give an indication that during this emergency, which will bring great unemployment to this country, his right hon. Friend will either allow free post or take away the licensing monopoly of the GPO, so that the Royal Mail will continue to ensure that this nation survives?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the sale of stamps. I understand that the Post Office estimates that in the larger offices there is a sufficient supply of stamps for several weeks, but only about one week's supply in sub-post offices. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is giving the chairman of the Post Office full backing in the measures that he is taking to restore the service, and is keeping in close touch with the situation. Of course, my right hon. Friend does not have the power—nor do I believe the House would wish him to have it—to interfere in the day-to-day management of the Post Office.
With regard to the State monopoly of the Post Office, one of the options being considered by my right hon. Friend is whether any modification is required. That has not been ruled out. On the other hand, it has not been ruled in.

Mrs. Renée Short: When does the Leader of the House intend to set up the Select Committees that were approved by the House early on Tuesday morning? I understand that the Selection Committee will meet next week. Will the right hon. Gentleman charge it with setting up these Commitees so that urgent reports, such as the one on perinatal mortality, which is hanging fire until the Committee can be reconstituted, can be completed? This is very urgent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know of the work that the hon. Lady has done in the Select Committee that considered perinatal mortality. I am anxious that that work should be preserved. I agree that this is an urgent matter. I do not think that it is for me to charge the Selection Committee with anything, but I shall encourage it to move fast so that the Committees are set up before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In view of the continual difficulties over the printing of parliamentary papers and other products of the Stationery Office, and when this particular episode is over, will my right hon. Friend consider making a report to the House on the reasons for these interruptions in the proper supply of our papers? Is he aware that every time a settlement is made Ministers breathe a sigh of relief and do not wish to dig any deeper into the matter, lest they make things worse, but that that attitude only produces another dispute in three months' time?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware, as I am sure my right hon. Friend is, that this is a difficult and delicate situation. No one deplores more than I do the interruption of the supply of papers to the House. Perhaps I may use this occasion to pay tribute to the staff of the House who, in a difficult situation, keep us supplied with our necessary papers.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread anxiety felt in South Yorkshire about the continuing reports in the press—repeated in today's edition of The Guardian—of the impending cancellation by the Government of the transfer of the headquarters of the Manpower Services Commission to Sheffield? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide an opportunity for local Members


of Parliament to debate this matter before any decision is announced?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know that I can promise a debate on the subject, but I am aware of the anxiety that is felt on this matter. In fact, in my normal daily reading of The Guardian I noticed the point and, indeed, a picture of the building concerned. However, there are difficult issues here. It is not a question of "right or wrong". I think that there is a conflict of "rights". I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient for a bit longer, until decisions can be taken.

Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind the grave implications for the security and defence of the United Kingdom posed by certain articles of the SALT II agreement, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the matter?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It will be difficult to provide such an opportunity before the recess, but there may well be an opportunity to raise the matter during the Foreign Secretary's Question Time.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister aware of the provisions of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act regarding accommodation for hon. Members? Will he provide time next week for this matter to be fully debated, so that the Mother of Parliaments can at least nurture her newborn babes and not send them on the streets of London like urchins, as has happened to some hon. Members since I was elected?
In addition, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that the Act clearly states that an employer can be taken to court for not providing the accommodation necessary under the Act? As you, Mr. Speaker, are the titular employer of Members of Parliament, I do not believe that any hon. Member, new or old, would like that action to be taken. Nevertheless, it is available under the Act. What action is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am happy to say that the immediate problem of the allotment of rooms and desks to hon. Members has been satisfactorily solved—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—more or less satisfactorily solved. I pay tribute to those who have been so co-operative in this matter—and to those who have encouraged them to be so.
I am aware that in the long term the situation is not satisfactory. I am looking into the matter. We shall shortly be bringing the issue before the Services Committee to see whether better use can be made of such accommodation as we have. In the long run, we need a new Parliament building. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear "]. I do not mean that it should be to replace this one: I mean that it should be in addition to it. However, the times hardly seem to be auspicious for that. I hope that we shall not reach the extreme point of a trial, which the hon. Member suggested. It would raise some interesting problems, because the appropriate court would be the High Court of Parliament.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On what day does the Prime Minister expect to make her statement on the Tokyo summit? Will the Leader of the House ask her to include in that statement her assessment, after her discussions, of the consequences of the OPEC oil price rise and, indeed—as she has spoken to President Carter—her assessment of the consequences of the SALT II agreement for the defence of Europe?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Certainly I shall convey those requests to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I am sure that she will have thought of those matters already. My right hon. Friend will make her statement on the day after her return. [HON. MEMBERS: "When will that be?"] I am just working it out. It will be Tuesday next.

Mr. Newens: Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to say when he will be able to tell us of any possible changes in the time devoted to foreign affairs questions? He will remember that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have, pointed out that because questions on EEC affairs and overseas aid are combined with questions on the rest of the world there is now, in the eyes of many Members, a shortage of time for putting questions on the rest of the world? In those circumstances, will it be possible to make any change before the recess, and perhaps even in time for the next foreign affairs Question Time?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am pursuing the matter not only through the usual channels but with Ministers and the


Opposition spokesmen concerned. I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the matter, one way or the other, by the time of my next Business Statement.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are two views in the House on the subject of Prime Minister's Question Time? Some hon. Members think that the open question is to the advantage of Back Benchers because it gives no indication of what is intended by way of supplementary questions, and it was the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) who tried to stop such questions when the system was first introduced by a Labour Back Bencher in the previous Parliament.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that there are more than two views in the House on this subject. If there were only two, it would be comparatively simple to decide between them. In seeing what can be done to increase the utility of Prime Minister's Question Time, every view will be taken into account, but I cannot hold out the hope of any revolutionary change. These things come about by practice more than by decree.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the widespread concern about the future of regional policy and the position of development areas and special development areas, will the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have a statement—I hope that it will be at an early date—from the Secretary of State for the Environment on the future of the Government's regional policy?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: These are important matters. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Member's concern.

Mr. Cormack: In view of the crucial importance of the SALT II agreement, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we shall have a chance to debate it before the United States Congress makes its final decision on ratification?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That date is rather unpredictable, so I cannot be categorical about it. But, clearly, the House must have an opportunity to debate matters of major concern in foreign affairs.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the law of contempt is in a hell of a mess, particularly since the ruling in Strasbourg on The Sunday Times thalidomide case? Will he provide time for an early debate on this subject or, perhaps, indicate when the Government's proposed legislation will be brought before the House for debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The matter is under examination. It is an urgent matter but, not having had the benefit of serving in the Law Officers' Department, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has, I should not use such robust language.

Mr. Lawrence: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) about Select Committees, will my right hon. Friend explain how it can be possible for those of us who served for a year on the perinatal and neonatal mortality inquiry to conclude our inquiry under the new arrangements on which the House has voted, and whether it would he possible to have some sort of transitional arrangement whereby that Sub-Committee of the Select Committee—that is, those of us who are left on it—can conclude its inquiries before the introduction of the new measures?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should like to accommodate my hon. Friend, but I cannot do it in that way. The House has made up its mind and taken its decision. I hope that the appropriate Committee will take up and complete the work to which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) referred. I shall encourage it to do so.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time next week for a debate on capital punishment? As an assiduous reader of The Guardian, will he recommend to his colleagues that they read the article in today's New Society, which clearly demonstrates that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is irrelevant? We should take the earliest opportunity to end the argument about this barbaric form of punishment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman has made his position plain. I cannot provide a debate next week, but I


promise a debate on this important subject before the House rises for the Summer Recess. The reading matter of my colleagues is a matter for them. Having recommended The Guardian, if I were to add New Society I should be pushing my luck.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Is my right hon. Friend also pursuing the matter of the inadequate time provided for oral questions to the Attorney-General, which amounts to about 10 minutes a month? I raised the matter in the House the other day. If my right hon. Friend is pursuing it, what has been the result?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am in hot pursuit and hope to be able to deal with that matter at the same time as Foreign Office questions, because the issues are related. If hon. Members look through the order of questions they will see that there is little flexibility. Few Ministers have uninterrupted time in the whole question period.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the increasing interest of the House in Indo-Chinese affairs, as shown by Adjournment debates and questions? These matters are of deep concern to the United Kingdom. Should we not have an opportunity for sensible debate? The need is certainly not met by the Home Secretary bellowing from the Dispatch Box his condemnation of the Vietnamese Government.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am fully aware of the important humanitarian considerations involved and shall look into the matter. It is clearly of great concern and has touched the conscience of the entire nation. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate.
As to the tones of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I do not find his voice bellowing. I find it soothing.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Gentlemen will ask brief questions, I shall call them all.

Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind that there are more than 80 signatories to my early-day motion 57 objecting to the Secretary of State for Scotland's order to allow the SNP-controlled Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council to impose a

savage 40 per cent. rent increase on council house tenants, will there be an opportunity to debate and decide that matter on the Floor of the House?

[That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing (Limitation of Rent Income Increases) (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District) (Scotland) Revocation Order 1979(S.I., 1979, No. 669), dated 13th June 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th June, be annulled.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is an important matter, and I suggest that it should be pursued by the hon. Gentleman through the usual channels.

Mr. Douglas: Returning to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, if the Leader of the House is successful in getting the Secretary of State for Energy to come before the House, will he ask him to take cognisance of the effect of the OPEC price increases on the development of our resources? We are sick and tired of seeing articles in the newspapers about the gas gathering system and the deep drilling programme. The House should have an opportunity to look at the Government's overall strategy for the development of the North Sea because it has deep and significant implications for British industry.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree with the hon. Member on the importance of that subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is pursuing these problems within his Department, and continual study is going on. I shall convey to him the concern that I believe is widespread for a debate.

Mr. English: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is going backwards in taking the whole of the Finance Bill Committee on the Floor of the House, even though it may be with the approval of the Opposition Front Bench? To avoid boring the pants off hon. Members who are not tax experts, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to bring those wretched sittings to a close at 10 o'clock?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That suggestion is of great interest, but I am rather dubious about whether it will commend itself to all hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman is a little over-pessimistic. We may be


taking up time, but surely we must be going forwards and not backwards.

Mr. Hooley: Does the Leader of the House agree that a debate on foreign affairs is infinitely more important than one on hanging? Will there be an opportunity to debate the situation in Southern Africa before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: One cannot make qualitative judgments about the importance of subjects that are not strictly comparable. Some hon. Members will be more interested in capital punishment than in foreign affairs.

Mr. Russell Kerr: On the Conservative Benches.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, on both sides. It is a feature of this House that hon. Members have their personal priorities. I shall certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's promise that next week we shall have a debate on energy, will he consider having a wide-ranging debate to include the coal situation, the wisdom of selling BP shares at present and the reduction in the amount given to the Coal Board at a time when a coal pit with large reserves of coal is being closed in my constituency?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It would not be proper for me to go into the details of that. I have to balance the desire of hon. Members to debate a variety of subjects with that of not being kept sitting until the middle of August.

Mr. James Callaghan: May I revert to the rather evasive replies of the Leader of the House about the ratification of SALT II and the prospect of a debate? There is a serious need to debate that and show the United States Senate and the American people that the House is united in wishing that agreement to be ratified. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] In that case, may I amend my statement and ask whether the Leader of the House is aware that we wish to show our support of the Prime Minister's desire that that agree-

ment should be ratified? Will he therefore arrange for a debate on the subject at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The reaction of hon. Members to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition shows that this is a subject on which we should proceed not evasively but cautiously. When the Leader of the Opposition expresses himself in such terms, we must take note of it. I shall convey his wish and that of those supporting his views to my right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my question to the Lord President on regional policy. I unfortunately referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment, when I meant the Secretary of State for Industry. I perhaps had in mind also a statement on inner city policy, which is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not a point of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the correction of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). May I ask him to make another? I am not Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Heffer: One cannot win them all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the first time that I have had the opportunity to tell the Leader of the House that a matter refererd to by him is not a point of order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on both motions.

Ordered,
That the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (No 1) Order 1975 (Amendment) Order 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Pneumoconiosis. Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1979 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister to speak to the first motion, I should tell the House that the scope of the debate is exceedingly narrow. I point out, as other occupiers of the Chair have in the past, that the order seeks merely to continue in existence for a further period the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts. While, therefore, it will be in order to argue that one or more of these Acts should or should not be continued because of what is in them, whoever is in the Chair will be bound to check any argument that the Acts should be amended or extended to cover matters that they do no, at present cover. With the exception of a few minor provisions, the Acts relate entirely to matters of discipline. References to other detailed matters affecting Service life or to general defence policy would be quite out of order.

4.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.
The purpose of this order is to continue in force the Services Discipline Acts for a further year, until 31 August 1980. The Acts—namely the Army and Air Force Acts of 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act of 1957—are the foundation of Service law and thus of Service discipline. As the House will be aware, a Service man or Service woman is subject both to civil law, like any other citizen of this land, and also to Service law which imposes certain additional restrictions necessary for the efficient operation of the Forces. One purpose of the Service Discipline Acts is to provide the statutory basis for the Service code of discipline and for the system used to enforce that code. A Service man or Service woman is, therefore, subject to these constraints over and above the ordinary civil law of England and the ordinary judicial system.
The continuation order which has been laid before us provides an opportunity, which I am sure the House will wish to seize, to consider how well the discipline-

ary arrangements of the Services are working. Discipline in the Services is of a very high standard and this has enabled them to cope with the many and varied situations in which they find themselves—from exercises in North Norway to disaster relief in various parts of the world.
I should also like to say something about the implementation of the changes made by the Armed Forces Act 1976, notably the extension of the powers of summary punishment available to commanding officers in the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines; the establishment of standing civilian courts to deal with civilians who are subject to the Army and Air Force Acts whilst serving overseas; the introduction of new powers of sentence applicable to civilians and, in particular, juveniles under the jurisdiction of all three Service Discipline Acts; and also bringing the Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service and the Women's Royal Naval Service under the Naval Discipline Act. These new provisions did not come into force until 1 July 1977 but we can make a preliminary assessment of their effectiveness and use.
I take first the extension of the powers of summary punishment. These have been used on more than 300 occasions. There has been a corresponding decrease in the number of courts martial which have taken place during this period, although this may not be entirely due to the use of the new powers. On the evidence of the past two years, I think it fair to say that the use of these extended powers has not given rise to any major problem, and that they are fulfilling their purpose in dealing with cases where neither the interests of the individual Service man nor those of the Service require the full administrative burden of a court martial. The individual Service man still can opt for a court martial if he should so choose.
As regards the establishment of standing civilian courts and the new powers of sentence for civilians, particularly Juveniles, the picture is again satisfactory. The House will recall that standing civilian courts were intended to provide a more appropriate form of tribunal for dealing with civilians overseas, akin rather to a magistrates' court in England. A wider range of penalties was introduced which made the new court particularly suitable for handling juvenile offenders


through the use of such powers as community supervision orders, orders in regard to parents or guardians, and conditional and absolute discharges. The courts are currently operating in the areas of British Forces Germany, and since their creation in 1977 until the first quarter of this year, there have been about 70 trials by standing civilian courts involving 100 defendants, of whom about two-thirds have been juveniles. The most common sentences have been conditional discharges and fines and the level of sentence has tended to be similar to that prevailing in magistrates' courts in England.
Bringing the QARNNS and WRNS under the Naval Discipline Act has made little or no difference in the daily operation of these excellent Services, while making them more an integral part of the Senior Service.
As the House is aware, the Service Discipline Acts cannot be continued indefinitely by means of an order such as the one before us today. Every five years a new Armed Forces Act is required. The next one is due in 1981. This quinquennial review provides an opportunity to keep the provisions of the Acts in line with modern Service requirements and, as far as the exigencies of Service life allow, with civilian practice. There is a high standard of Service discipline in which we can take justifiable pride. It is this which we seek to continue in the order laid before the House today.
I think that it may be helpful for me to seek to catch your eye at the end of the debate. Mr. Speaker, in order to deal with any detailed or general points that may arise on the order.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: This debate is about the continuance of the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts for a further year. The Opposition will, of course, support the motion.
On looking at past debates I have noticed that there have been varying degrees of trouble with the Chair over the narrowness of the debate. I congratulate the Minister on having managed to get through his speech without being pulled up, because I assure him that a lot of his predecessors were not so

lucky. In 1972 I chanced my arm and created a record by speaking for seven minutes without incurring the wrath of the Chair. I seem to have been one of the very few who have managed to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was very tolerant with the new Minister, and I thought that the rest of the House would not have noticed just how tolerant I was. I hope that hon. Members will not take advantage of that.

Mr. Concannon: Point taken, Mr. Speaker. I have had a little experience of these debates, and I hope that I can keep on the straight and narrow.
I first took part in debates of this nature in 1972—that was the occasion on which I chanced my arm and got away with it. On a number of occasions this order has gone through on the nod, but the 1977 debate, which was very narrow, caused many hon. Members a lot of discomfort. Then last year the order was discussed on the Adjournment motion on which we had a far-reaching debate on the Army.
On looking around the Chamber, I feel that today is a rather sad occasion. So many of those who used to take part in these debates are no longer with us—Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles, "Curly" Mallalieu, John Cronin, and Harwood Harrison. I welcome back to these debates one of our old stalwarts—the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
I understand that the parent Act will cease to operate by the end of 1981 and that a new Act will be required. That will give the House an opportunity to look at the Armed Forces Discipline Acts in more detail and to have a rethink on certain attitudes to discipline. I was on the Select Committee in the 1960s when we were perturbed about certain aspects of this matter. Drug taking, while not prevalent at the time, was causing us concern, but I understand that that has been stamped on very hard in the Army and is no longer a problem.
I understand that the House will shortly debate the subject of capital punishment. We were concerned about that matter in relation to the legislation that is now before us. If the principle of capital punishment is defeated, the House


might like to have an opportunity to examine these matters in more detail. I doubt whether, in this day and age, the death penalty would be countenanced to deal with any offence in the Armed Forces. I believe that if capital punishment ever had any use at all—and I very much doubt that it had—that use has long since passed. If one reads the history of punishment and its effect on morale in the Armed Forces, one sees that the death penalty and the carrying out of that punishment was greatly abused by the authorities and led to a lessening rather than a tightening up of morale.
A matter that arose from a Select Committee report—a report that I fully endorsed—related to the extension of the powers of summary punishment available to commanding officers in the Army, Royal Air Force and Royal Marines. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), who had long experience in the Defence Department, was very much involved in this proposal. The Minister could almost have moved the order formally, because he answered all my questions before I had the opportunity to put them. However, I should like to thank him for the figures he put before the House.
I wish to refer to the power of commanding officers to keep within their units those who require discipline. I am not perturbed about any reduction in the number of courts martial. Each time I appeared before my commanding officer and was asked whether I would like the matter to be dealt with by him or by a court martial at a later stage, I invariably asked for the matter to be dealt with immediately so that I could remain with my unit.
I speak from experience of these matters. I have sampled the vigours of military discipline on a number of occasions and in varying degrees. They related to my misdeeds or to the fact that I bucked against authority—and only to the occasions when I was caught. If I had been caught every time, I should still be a constituent of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck).
We are discussing whether this legislation should be continued for a further year, and nobody would disagree with that proposition. The Armed Forces in Northern Ireland are contently put to

the test. This is a special occasion, and I should like to quote what I said on the renewal of these Acts in 1972.
I concur wholeheartedly with all that has been said in the House today about our forces in Northern Ireland and the disciplinary situation there. As a young guardsman involved in the situation in Palestine and Egypt and places such as those, I know what a terrific strain these situations can put on young Service men who are in them for the first time. When troops are at full stretch, they become irksome and tired …
I recollect some of the nasty accidents that used to happen in places overseas, accidents not only between civilians and troops but also between the troops themselves. These were things beyond the normal machinations of the day. They were attributed to complete over-stretch, at times when the forces were having two hours on duty and two hours off, sleeping where they could, in their uniforms, with rifles tied to them, and so on. In such circumstances their ability to think and react 100 per cent. is impaired … there will always be a few incidents. What surprises me is that there are not many more. All the offences being alleged against our troops in Northern reland concern the normal thing one expects in this sort of confrontation …
What worries me is the disciplinary end afterwards. I am becoming perturbed about the manner of the discipline that soldiers are having to take in these circumstances. Many young men join the Army intent on making it a career. At the tender age of 18 they are thrown into a situation such as that in Northern Ireland. For one mistake, through tiredness or irksomeness, they find themselves in trouble …
I am more perturbed about the ending of a young man's career at the age of 18 or 19, and that of the long-serving soldier who has, perhaps, seven or eight years' service and who suddenly finds himself accidentally through the pressures in Northern Ireland, on a charge … I am worried about the number of people whose careers are being ended through this kind of thing"—[Official Report, 30 November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 726–27.]
I said that in 1972 and I do not retract one word of it. In the past five years I have witnessed the task undertaken by our Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. My admiration for their work, under trying conditions in Belfast, Armagh and other areas, knows no bounds. We must remember the glare of publicity under which they work, the backcloth of allegations of brutality, harassment and victimisation—all of which amount to a well-conducted and deliberate campaign to discredit the discipline and morale of our Armed Forces.
A small minority crack under the strain. That relates to a very small number of soldiers, and we know that one recent


incident had unfortunate results. Anybody who has served in the Armed Forces for any length of time has seen these incidents happen with varying degrees of damage and loss of life. It is not my intention in this debate to criticise. No Army could have carried out its duties better. There will be incidents, however regrettable, but, bearing in mind the amount of weaponry seen on the streets of Northern Ireland—particularly in the Belfast shopping areas on Saturdays—we can only be thankful that, because of the discipline of our Armed Forces, such incidents are few in number.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: As one who received much of his most formative education on the restrictions parade ground, I am always proud to take part in these debates.
I wish to raise one simple matter. In 1976 the Army, Royal Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts were amended to bring them into line with current practice, and my hon. Friend the Minister said that the scope of the Acts was then broadened to encompass civilians serving overseas. I wish to ask whether the air crews of civil air transports—which can, under current legislation, be requisitioned in time of emergency or war—might be called upon to fly to war zones or operational areas, and, if so, whether they would come under the discipline provisions of the Act relating to the Royal Air Force.
This is important because a large proportion of air crews of civil air transport fleets have not received their training in the Services and therefore have no reserve commitment and are not subject, if called up for duty, to the Air Force Act. Since our Royal Air Force air transport fleet has been diminished, and as this legislation is to be reviewed in 1981, I hope that this matter will be examined.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It might surprise the House that I am intervening in this debate. But hon. Members might like to know that I come from a military background. My father was a professional soldier, one of my uncles, who was awarded a military medal, was killed in France in the First World War, and I served in the Royal Air

Force during the last war. Therefore, I have an interest in this subject.
The problem is that hon. Members are forced to debate this order in a narrow sense. It reads:
The Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 shall continue in force for a period of twelve months beyond 31st August 1979, that date being the date on which they would otherwise expire
I believe that there is a good case for saying that these Acts should not be allowed to continue until the House is given Government assurances. I think that that request is legitimately within the rules of order. It does not mean that I can deal with what is contained in these Acts, but surely I am allowed to seek assurances.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) mentioned Northern Ireland. He referred to the fact that some of our soldiers are under immense nervous strain as a result of their service there. Some of our younger people fear repeated visits to the Province. They do so because service in Northern Ireland is not the normal work of a soldier. They are returning in a police role to police the people whom they consider to be their kith and kin. Many of them are Protestant or Catholic, and they find themselves in immense difficulty. I know from contact with constituents that there have been tremendous problems in this direction with some of our young people.
My right hon. Friend stressed, quite rightly, that they are only a minority. Some of them have almost broken under the strain. They have been subjected to disciplinary charges when they should have been given a bout of hospitalisation and removal from that duty. This gives rise to a serious political problem, but it would be out of order for me to go into that now.
I am seeking clear assurances from the Minister that when young soldiers encounter this difficulty the authorities will adopt a different attitude towards discipline from that which has been adopted in many cases in the past. I cannot go into detail on those cases, but I have communicated with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the past when they were in office about some of them.
We must get into line with the positive developments that have taken place on the question of discipline in the Armed


Forces of our NATO allies. We must get away from the old-fashioned concepts of discipline. Many advances have been made, but it is not good enough that a soldier is able only to call upon an officer to defend him when charges are made. The time has come for Service men to be able to elect representatives to act as spokesmen for them in any disciplinary matter. That raises the question whether we are to accept what happens in Germany, Holland and other NATO countries, where trade union organisation is permitted.
I know that Conservative Members go berserk at the suggestion that there should be some form of trade union organisation in the Armed Forces. They regard it as a subversive suggestion. I am not trying in any way to undermine the Armed Forces, but we must bring them up to date and into line with what happens in the armed forces of our NATO partners.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) was looking into this matter when he was Secretary of State. That ended with the election, of course. However, I hope that the new Government, in spite of their reactionary concepts in every other direction, will be able to follow my right hon. Friend's example, consider the position in other countries and examine whether Service men should have the right to join trade unions of their choice.
I admit that there is a problem here. It is argued that Service men might not like the idea of outside trade unions negotiating on their behalf. The police have the Police Federation, which is not a trade union but which certainly provides proper representation. The federation has considered whether it should join the Trades Union Congress. If there is a strong feeling among Service men that they do not want an outside trade union to represent them in negotiations on, for example, conditions, we should at least consider giving them the right to form a trade union.

Mr. Michael English: A company union.

Mr. Heffer: I do not think that it would be a company union. I do not regard the Police Federation as a company union. It is an independent organi-

sation, and I hope that ultimately it will join the TUC. It does a good job. Of course, some soldiers may have belonged to craft trade unions before joining the Service, and they might want to retain membership of those unions. But my proposal is aimed at a union to represent Service men on matters of wages, conditions, discipline, and so on.
Before we allow the order to pass—I understand that it normally goes through on the nod—I hope the Government will agree to consider the possibility of bringing the Services up to date by giving the rank and file some form of trade union representation.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) argued in favour of trade union representation in the Armed Forces, and I can see that there can be arguments in favour of that. One of the weakest arguments for it, however, is to say that because some of our allies have such a system we should have it too. Some of our allies have it, but others do not, and there is no discoverable relationship between the efficiency of the forces and whether they have trade unions.

Mr. Wilkinson: Their hair is longer.

Mr. Kershaw: Yes, their hair is longer, but the trade unions, being old-fashioned organisations, might not like long hair.
If there were trade unions in the Armed Forces, that would mean 100 per cent. trade unionism. Clearly, there could be no question of voluntary membership. That would cause chaos. But only a quarter of the civilian work force in this country is organised within trade unions, and one of the facts of military law is that it should not be too far removed from civilian law. It is desirable to avoid the impression that the Armed Forces live in a different fashion. If, in the civilian world, only a quarter of the work force is unionised while in the Armed Forces the figure is 100 per cent., that would be a divagation from civil life, which would have to be justified before it was put into effect.
The right hon. Member tot Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred to the death penalty. As he said, the time to discuss it will he next year, but it might be worth


trying to separate in our minds one or two of the aspects of the matter. First, we should consider the death penalty in terms of the different crimes for which it is, or might be imposed. It is unlikely that the House will vote to reimpose the death penalty for civil murder, but that is the crime that one uses for purposes of comparison. Civil murder is an offence so different from those for which the death penalty is prescribed in the Armed Forces. The death penalty in the Armed Forces applies for various offences in the face of the enemy—the penalty for standing up to the enemy may be death, but the penalty for running away may be a term of imprisonment. Those considerations are quite different from those appertaining to the penalty for civil murder.
In civilian life the death penalty is retained for treason in time of war. If it could be said that a citizen who commits the crime of treason may be hanged but a soldier who commits a similar offence may be tried under military law and that penalty would not apply to him, we would find ourselves in a muddle of logic.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield referred to the troops in Northern Ireland. I feel deeply that what he says is true. A constituent of mine—a particularly poignant case—is a young ex-soldier of 18. He suddenly discharged his weapon at a civilian building and was charged in the civil courts and convicted. He appealed against that conviction but the appeal was turned down. I shall not comment upon the penalty that was exacted by the civil court. Nevertheless, it was imposed, and thereupon he was discharged from the Army as well because the offence related to the use of a firearm.
That is an offence for which the Army discharges the offender. However, he has not been convicted by the Army of anything. I believe that he was punished twice. He was a young man who had set his heart upon a military career from his school days and had determined to do nothing else. For his career to be cut short at the age of 19 is a harsh penalty. I believe that it was basically unfair and, no doubt, he, too, will believe that he has been treated unfairly. As the right hon.
Member for Mansfield said, he is an example of a young man who needs not punishment but treatment for a short time to restore him to health.
I welcome back to our debates my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) after his enforced absence. He mentioned the problem of air crews being subject to military discipline. I agree entirely with his remarks. However, I should like to add the addendum that when our forces are mobilised it will be necessary to move a large number of troops to Germany. Most of them will travel by air. They will be sent at the last possible moment because it will not be the wish of the Front Bench of the day to exacerbate the matter by mobilising sooner than is necessary. Of course, the fear exists that they will be mobilised too late. Nevertheless, we may anticipate that events will be hard, harsh and urgent when the troops finally leave these shores to take up their position in Germany.
It will be necessary and desirable that they should land as far forward towards the front line as possible. I believe that they should land closer to the area of danger than, perhaps, others would feel. Under those circumstances, they will be flying with civilian crews. There is no question of the RAF taking over the aircraft, because at such short notice they will not know how to fly the aircraft and they will not have the available crews. Therefore, civil airliners, requisitioned for the purpose under our law and flown by civilian crews, will not be subject to military laws in areas where hostilities may be breaking out.
What can be done about civilian crews who refuse to fly into areas of danger? There may well—after all—be trade unions, in effect, inside the forces. Therefore, I hope that these matters will be reconsidered when the Act has to be renewed next year. I hope that the legal position of the air crews will be borne in mind.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: If I understood the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) correctly, he opposed the unionisation of the Armed Forces that was suggested by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), on the ground that it would be preferable to have the same sort of industrial practices


in the Armed Forces as pertain elsewhere.
On that basis, I should like to raise a disciplinary point. A constituent of mine had been looking forward for some months to joining the Women's Royal Air Force. She had undergone the medicals which enabled her to do so. She went to Cambridge and did her attestation, and then she was sent to Hereford for yet another medical—her third. At that point she was discharged from the Air Force, for failing the medical. She had spent a substantial part of her adult life looking forward to joining the WRAF, she had spent seven months waiting to join, and during her first week of service, and after her third medical, she found that she was medically unsuitable. As a result, she received seven days' severance pay.
That is an industrial practice that would not be accepted anywhere else. If she had been in civilian employment she would have been able to go to an industrial tribunal, and I do not doubt that the sympathy of the tribunal would have been with her. However, because she joined the Air Force on a Monday and was discharged on a Wednesday she was paid seven days' terminal leave. Had it not been for my intervention that would have been all that she received, but after investigation, and a wait of five weeks, she received another seven days' terminal pay. However, the end of the road has now been reached.
I give notice to the Minister that I intend to find out how often that sort of practice occurs. It is wrong for the Defence Department to deal with individuals in a way that no industrial company would. It is playing with the lives of people. In times of war, perhaps, it might be acceptable, but in times of peace it is the worst sort of incompetence. I am well aware that if the Air Force were a quango it would have been given notice. I do not believe that the Air Force has the right to treat people in a far worse manner than industry does. I should like to know how many people are discharged within a day or a week of attestation. Perhaps it is easier to allow medicals to be undergone away from the Air Force so that people can join and then be kicked out. If it is easier, I believe that it is wrong, and I intend to do something about it.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I compliment the Under-Secretary on the finesse with which he avoided falling foul of the Chair in this narrowly-drawn debate. He was infinitely more successful than I was with one of your predecessors, Mr.. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) touched upon the strain of the military discipline that is imposed by the dangerous and difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland. That strain results, above all, from the overstretch of the Armed Forces due to shortage of numbers, repeated tours of duty to Northern Ireland—some units having been there eight or even nine times—and the long hours that are served. Other hon. Members have mentioned specific instances where the strain has caused men to snap under the pressure.
I urge the Under-Secretary to reexamine the whole question of the number of hours served on duty in Northern Ireland. Until recently, and perhaps even now, they were running at an average of 110 a week. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will feel that to subject men to those sorts of hours of duty comes close to recklessness and irresponsibility. I urge my hon. Friend to seek ways of reducing the overstretch and the long hours to a more acceptable level, say about 90 hours a week, if circumstances permit.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. He has a superb job, as I know, having held the same post myself in the past. I hope that he enjoys-it as much as I did and has a successful tenure of office. He has the good wishes of all hon. Members. I see Labour Members nodding in agreement. There is a substantial element of bipartisanship in the way that we deal with matters affecting our Armed Forces, and it is right that that should be so.
I could not deal with the order other than briefly and remain in order. It is appropriate that I should say a few words because the centre for Forces' discipline, particularly the Army, is in my constituency. The right hon. Member for Mansfield, (Mr. Concannon) does not mind my revealing that he has personal experience of that institution. Perhaps


he is the greatest expert in the House on disciplinary matters, since he has been on the receiving end of Colchester.
One of the principal "old boys" has made a distinguished contribution to the debate. Perhaps that is a commendation of the work done at Colchester. The right hon. Gentleman also earned the admiration of us all for his work in the Northern Ireland Office in the previous Government. It helps to be Colchester-trained.
I should like the Under-Secretary to deal with the ever-present possibility of the rebuilding of the military corrective training establishment in Colchester. It is just about the last of the hutted camps. A remarkable amount of work is needed to keep it clean, and Nissen huts are renowned as being uneconomic. The whole place needs rebuilding, and I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can say when that will be done. Successive Governments have let secondary building programmes slip and I should like to know where the rebuilding at Colcester stands in the current programme.
The morale of the Armed Forces was boosted by the recent pay award. I understand that there was an immediate reduction in the number of petty crimes and disciplinary offences in the Armed Forces. I commend the Government wholeheartedly for announcing immediately after the election—even before the Queen's Speech—that they were improving Service pay. That has had a profound effect on discipline.
The biggest strain on Service discipline is that of serving in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) referred to the number of hours served by soldiers in the Province. Of equal importance is the frequency of tours of duty. Some units have done eight or nine tours, and it is not an attractive pattern to have a tour in Colchester, agreeable though that place is, an occasional tour in BAOR, and Northern Ireland coming round with greater frequency.
The previous Government increased the numbers in the Armed Forces by creating a new battalion. There was no announcement in the House, and the Government disguised their action cleverly because otherwise they would

have had trouble from some Labour Members below the Gangway. I hope that I am right in anticipating an expansion of our Armed Forces which will ensure that the tours of duty to Northern Ireland will not be so frequent.
It is in Northern Ireland that one sees the discipline of the Armed Forces put under greatest strain, but one also sees them at their most splendid there. No other forces in the world could sustain that burden with such a small number of disciplinary problems.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made some interesting remarks about trade unions. I am not sympathetic to the idea. It has less validity here than in other NATO countries, because we do not have national service. A case could be made for greater protection being given to those who are conscripted, either through the military ombudsman appointed by some countries or in other ways. That argument does not have the same force in this country because we have wholly professional Services, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
It is pleasing to know that discipline in the Armed Forces is good and that there is no crisis or trouble in spite of the enormous burden sustained by our forces in Northern Ireland. I reiterate that discipline and morale has been transformed by the Government's decision on pay.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I understand that certain limitations are placed on hon. Members in the debate because we are concerned only with the renewal of an order. That presents me with problems, because I wish to object to the renewal and I hope that what I have to say will be seen to be in order.
I object to the renewal of the order because of, for example, the inadequacy of section 54 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 which deals with the composition of courts-martial, and for other reasons relating to the offences covered by the Act. Section 54 provides that
A court-martial shall consist of not less than five nor more than nine officers, being officers of Her Majesty's naval forces subject to this Act who are of or above the rank of lieutenant
A member of the other ranks has to be tried by a group of officers, some of


whom may have served on the same ship as the accused man. The most senior officer is likely to be a rear-admiral or another high-ranking officer. It is a "them and us" situation. Other ranks will obviously feel that their prospects of presenting their case with any chance of being listened to sympathetically is weakened, to put it no stronger, by the fact that they are not being tried by their peers—members of the other ranks—or even by non-commissioned officers. They are being tried by officers in courts-martial.
Some hon. Members may scoff at the notion of one of the other ranks being tried by a group of men from the same ranks. If a member of the other ranks has committed an offence covered by the Act serious enough to warrant a court martial, I believe that other ranks are quite capable of determining whether he is guilty of the offence. They are certainly capable of listening to the witnesses, weighing up the evidence, and of interpreting the Act which, presumably, is the function of the officers at a court martial. Therefore, the Minister ought to be looking very closely towards innovation in the late part of the twentieth century by seeking to introduce other ranks as members of courts martial.
An additional element that causes me concern and makes me unwilling to accept the renewal of the order is the question of how a member of the other ranks defends himself at a court martial. I have cause to remember an incident which happened some years ago when a member of the other ranks faced a court martial charged with conduct prejudicial to good order under section 39 of this Act. He was charged with subversive activity. When one looks at that section of the Act dealing with mutiny, and the wording thereof, and at subsequent sections, one could be forgiven for being somewhat bewildered by what was meant by the words "prejudicial to good order" and what was subversive conduct.
When a member of the other ranks faces such a situation—if there has been a change, I seek information—he is offered the aid of an officer to defend him at the court martial. It is true that he can choose whether he will accept "Jimmy-the-One"—the Iieutenant-commander—to defend him, or whether he will accept some officer aboard ship

or some other officer if, at the time, the accused is in a fleet shore accommodation or in port. If I had been aboard a ship at the same time as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) I might have decided that Corporal Heffer would be an ideal person to represent me before a court martial—

Mr. English: He was in the Air Force.

Mr. Thorne: —but there is nothing in the Act which permits me to do that. I am forced to accept an officer to defend me. I admit that there are some officers who may conscientiously address themselves to the problems of an individual and the charges that he faces. There are very few officers—certainly the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) would not be one of them—who could grasp what was meant by subversive conduct by a member of the other ranks and be able to act in that man's defence. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Stretford, but I have come across many officers—somewhat like the hon Member in demeanour and temperament—who would have been the last people to represent a member of the other ranks facing a charge of subversive conduct.
I speak from personal experience when I say that there is absolutely nothing in the Naval Discipline Act 1957—or in what preceded or followed it—that gives a member of the other ranks the same rights of protection, before a court martial, as those afforded to a former hon. Member of the House of Commons who went through a much more serious court case than one involving conduct subversive to discipline. That case concerned a conspiracy to murder. All that the law could provide was afforded to that former hon. Member for his defence. In my view there is no excuse for us, in this House, permitting the renewal of an Act that does not give to the other ranks of our Armed Forces the same opportunities as were given to the former right hon. Member for Devon, North.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: I shall not delay the House for long, because this is a narrow debate about whether we carry the order forward for another year. The parent Act must be renewed by the end of 1981, as it comes up every five years. If we look at the


previous Act we find that we are continually moving forward in this matter. Most of the points put forward by my hon. Friends today will be brought before the House at the time of renewal.

Mr. English: Am I right in believing that that is usually done through a Select Committee, which enables the calling of any evidence relevant to the discussion?

Mr. Concannon: I and some of my hon. Friends were on the Select Committee which dealt with the last Act. Some of the changes introduced in that Act came straight from the Select Committee's recommendations. My hon. Friend knows more about Select Committee procedure than I do. We shall have to see how the matter works out.
What has emerged from speeches from both sides of the House is a concern about what is happening to our troops in Northern Ireland—not the vast majority but the few who crack under the stresses and strains of service there. The House is asking the Minister to see whether this is a question not so much of discipline as of hospitalisation and whether we can try to sort out the weaker elements before they crack up.
There has been no criticism whatsoever of our Armed Forces. Those who have served in them have seen the most unlikely individuals crack up, individuals who right up to the very moment of the crack-up were performing their duties. Suddenly something happens—whether as a result of a personal problem at home or whatever—and a man suddenly cracks. At such times discipline is perhaps not the answer to the problem. The answer may be to take a closer look at some of the conditions which have forced an individual to act in that way.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Speed: First, I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who have extended good wishes to me. As a former Regular sailor, I feel that there can be no greater honour than to be in my position as Under-Secretary of State for Defence with responsibility for the Royal Navy.
Secondly, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)

on his new position, on his translation from the stresses and strains of Northern Ireland to defence, and I welcome him to our debates. I am sure that we shall both be taking part in many. Immense good will has been expressed from both sides of the House to our Armed Forces in the difficult tasks which they have to undertake from time to time.
I come now to the comments of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), who, I thought, introduced a slightly discordant note into what was otherwise a debate in which, by and large, there was a fair measure of agreement, apart, perhaps, from the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about trade union activities, to which I shall return in a moment. The hon. Member for Preston, South is entitled to express his views. He can do so at the time of the review just mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mansfield. I confirm that there is normally a Select Committee to consider these matters and to take evidence. There has to be a new Act by 1981.
The view of the hon. Member for Preston, South, as I understand it, is virtually that there should be a people's court to replace the present court-martial procedure. I must say that that is not a view which commends itself to me. He does not seem to understand—I speak here of the Royal Navy, to which the hon. Member also addressed himself—the divisional officer system, and he suggests that only some officers might have an idea of what the various problems were about. The hon. Gentleman underestimates the concern that officers at all levels in the Royal Navy, whether direct entry officers or officers coming from the lower deck, have for the lower deck and all the people in their charge.
Having served as a divisional officer myself, and having in recent weeks seen the immense bond and trust between divisional officers, senior chief and petty officers, leading ratings, able seamen and junior seamen, all I can say is that if we had similar trust and harmony throughout British industry this country would be in a very much better state today than it is.

Mr. Thorne: With all respect to the Minister, I do not know how long he served in the Navy. I served in the Navy, and what he has just outlined does not represent my experience.

Mr. Speed: I joined the Royal Navy on 1 September 1947. I left the Royal Naval Reserve seven weeks ago. The hon. Gentleman can work it out for himself.

Mr. Thorne: As an officer.

Mr. Speed: I joined the Royal Navy as a cadet, and I speak from extensive experience. I have found no evidence from any naval rating, at any level, of the things that the hon. Gentleman was talking about. In addition, if a rating or, indeed, anyone else is charged under the court-martial arrangements, he is entitled, if he wishes, to employ a civilian lawyer under legal aid as well. That is an entitlement apart from having an officer as prisoner's friend.

Mr. Thorne: In what circumstances?

Mr. Speed: In the circumstances that I have outlined, at a court martial. That is one of the opportunities open to him. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in which he feels that injustice has been caused, and he lets me know about it, 1 shall be more than happy to look into it and see whether we can get things right. If things are wrong with the present system, we have the opportunity to deal with them. We have the quinquennial review so that we can ensure that things are put right as time goes on.

Mr. English: Is it the case that legal aid can be used and counsel claimed on any charge? Surely, there must be minor charges to which that cannot apply.

Mr. Speed: If they are very minor charges, they would not be subject to court martial. This is the object of the exercise. They would be subject to summary jurisdiction, under the commanding officer of the ship. I remind the House here of one of the objectives of the 1976 Act. Because of the peculiar conditions in which sailors serve, perhaps in a ship on detached service a long way from any other Navy facility, commanding officers have traditionally, over a long time, been able to take more serious charges and have wider summary powers than was the case

in the other Services. That balance was slightly redressed under the 1976 Act, with the consequences which I outlined in my opening speech. But, after all, a court martial offence is a pretty serious offence—I am sure that the House will agree—and the court-martial procedure is not normally used for very light offences.
I turn now to the main points raised in the debate. I can confirm to the right hon. Member for Mansfield that, although, of course, we would not wish in any way to be complacent about it, drugs do not seem to be a disciplinary or other problem within our Armed Forces. Obviously, we keep an eye on the matter, but I think that that can give us cause for some satisfaction.
The question of capital punishment is being looked at again. I think that it will probably come up before the Select Committee in the course of the review leading to the next discipline Act in 1981.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield and several other hon. Members very properly brought the question of Northern Ireland to the attention of the House. I acknowledge at once the tremendous stresses and strains put upon our Service men in Northern Ireland. Obviously, the Army is bearing the brunt, but it is worth remembering that both the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, in particular, do a great deal. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a Royal Marine commando on extended service there at the moment doing magnificent work.
I would not quarrel with the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on the sort of hours of service that Service men may be doing.
The hon. Member for Walton hoped that, in the light of the stresses and strains in Northern Ireland, discipline was not unduly repressive. I am sure that it is not. I am sure also that all Ministers who have ever served in the Northern Ireland Office—I think here of the right hon. Member for Mansfield—or who go from my Department to visit Northern Ireland will have seen for themselves that a special view is taken particularly over some of the very young men who are pitchforked into a situation which is uniquely different from almost anything else, where one literally does not know who is the enemy round the corner. This can involve psychological pressures of a


kind which, I believe, very few of us can appreciate unless we have lived there.

Mr. Heffer: There is another aspect to that matter. Some of the non-commissioned officers, for example, themselves under stress, can at times be harsh to young soldiers because of the circumstances they are in. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this also creates problems and that aspect of the matter needs to be looked at.

Mr. Speed: I entirely accept that, and I recognise—I do not say this in any critical sense—that many non-commissioned officers in all the Services now are themselves young men. They are bright and intelligent, they have to have a high technical proficiency, but they have great responsibilities put upon them at quite an early age. They have a number of young men's lives in their hands, and that in itself can in certain circumstances lead to the sort of things to which the hon. Members rightly referred.
We expect very high standards from our Armed Forces, and I think that where people do crack up it happens in a very small minority of cases. Nevertheless, in this sort of situation we want to see that justice is very much tempered with mercy. I take entirely the point which has been made, and I note the sense of the House in the debate. I shall see that these sentiments are conveyed to all concerned. Although I have no reason to think that matters are otherwise, I think it important that the House should make its views known.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) raised an interesting point about civilian aircrews and civil air transport. I cannot give him a specific answer now, but I shall pass the matter on to my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), who, as Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Royal Air Force, will write to my hon. Friend and give him an answer. Obviously, one thinks back to the Berlin airlift and the way that many civilian aircraft were employed in a situation somewhat similar to that which my hon. Friend had in mind. No doubt, those concerned came under appropriate discipline at that time. I shall ensure that an answer is given to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
I return now to the question of trade unionism. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) was not happy about the suggestions put forward by the hon. Member for Walton and neither, I confess, was I. First, there is no bar against a member of the Armed Forces joining a trade union as an individual. Indeed, towards the end of their military service in the Army, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Marines, tradesmen are encouraged to join the appropriate union since this will enable them to resettle and get an appropriate job in their trade in civilian life. However, I do not think that that was the point which the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
A number of problems arise in this context. First, I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little selective in his reference to NATO countries. I think that I am right in saying that the majority of NATO countries and, indeed, our ally countries do not have unionised forces as such.
Second, I have so far received no intimation whatever from all the various sailors and Royal Marines with whom I have spoken that there is any such desire to have representation on a collective basis.
Third, there is our established tradition, which I for one would be very unhappy to break, that the Services as such do not align themselves in any way with politics—politics of the Right, the Left or the Centre—and inevitably trade unions are aligned with politics in certain ways, as the hon. Member for Walton knows. There is a danger here which I would not wish to underestimate.
Moreover, there are such things as the independent Pay Review Body, which, on the whole, I think, is working well now. Conditions in the Services are improving, and rightly so, because of the pressures that are put on Governments not only by the independent Pay Review Body but by hon. Members. I am doubtful whether 100 per cent. trade union membership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said would virtually be essential, would advance working conditions or living conditions in the Services. It could bring with it many more problems than it would solve. However, if the hon. Member for Walton thinks that it is an idea that should go forward, it will be


open to him to make representations to my Department for it to be included in any new discipline Act. At present we are not convinced that collective trade union membership would be advantageous or desirable. Indeed, it has not been requested by those in the Services.
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) introduced a constituency case that has caused him concern. In principle I share his concern, although I do not have the details of the case. It is my intention that the Armed Services should treat their members and prospective members in a civilised manner. If that is not happening, we shall consider our procedures and ascertain whether they need to be improved. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to let my Department have further details, if he has not already provided them, we shall consider our procedures and ensure that they reach the highest possible level. We do not want to act in an uncivilised manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford talked about overstretch and the problems that it brings, especially in Northern Ireland, where there is the overstretching of young men during their tours of duty. Unfortunately, the Services generally are overstretched because of manpower problems. That has its disciplinary implications. The real answer is to improve manpower. The Army, Navy and Air Force are short of skilled personnel, and personnel generally. It cannot be acceptable that for quite long periods and under difficult conditions young men are working up to 110 hours a week. They can be subjected to enormous stresses and strains. We cannot be surprised when accidents and incidents occur from time to time because of the stresses and strains.
It is our intention to reduce the working week as far as possible. The figure that my hon. Friend mentioned is more than high enough but it would be an improvement. Bearing in mind the Northern Ireland situation—the right hon. Member for Mansfield will understand what I am about to say—it is not possible to enter into early commitments. However, we want to do all that we can. The more successful our recruiting becomes, the better it will be for the Services.
Several references have been made to units returning to Northern Ireland on seven, eight or nine occasions. Two units

in particular have been back to Northern Ireland eight or nine times on tours of duty. I know one of the units well. Many of the young men who have been back to Northern Ireland many times are in extremely good heart, and morale is high.
We must remember that the wives and families of Service men in Northern Ireland are put under strain. That should not be forgotten when we talk about discipline. Sometimes the stresses and strains are not the obvious ones of, for example, the sniper on the street corner. Stresses and strains can arise at home because of the natural worry and anxiety when members of families worry about their loved ones being under strain and stress in Northern Ireland time after time.
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) for what he said about my job. My hon. and learned Friend served in my present capacity with distinction. I take note of what he said about the rebuilding of the glasshouse at Colchester. I cannot give him the answer that he seeks this afternoon about an early rebuild. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) the Under-Secretary who has responsibility for the Army—writes to him as soon as possible. I agree that the implementation of the pay award will help further to improve discipline. There are various other measures that we intend to introduce in the near future that we hope will improve Service conditions generally. The improvements will be beneficial from a disciplinary point of view.
With one or two exceptions, the House generally has paid tribute to the high standards of the Armed Forces. I want to ensure that the Armed Forces offer a first-class long-term career both for men and women. It is a career of which men and women personnel can be proud. They should derive a great deal of satisfaction from serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Royal Marines, and their wives and relatives should be proud that they are playing their part in the Services.
Pay is one factor, as conditions of service is another. The public's appreciation, as well as that of the House, is important. We all like to be in jobs that others notice and appreciate as worth while. Serving Her Majesty and maintaining the defence and freedom of


Britain and the Western world is a job that is second to none. That in itself is one of the key factors in improving discipline in the Armed Services, which is already of a high order. I pay tribute to the professionalism, skill and high quality of those in the Armed Forces, and I hope that the House will approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — BAIL ETC (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading Read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland),
That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is suspended until seven o'clock, when private business will be taken.

5.18 p.m.

Sitting suspended.

7 p.m.

On resuming—

Orders of the Day — WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Before we commence the debate, it may be for the convenience of the House if I read the following prepared statement: Hon. Members will have observed from the published selection list that Mr. Speaker has selected the motion for recommittal in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and has grouped with it the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) to that new clause and amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11.
As soon as an hon. Member has moved that the Bill be now considered, I shall call upon the hon. Member for Perry Barr to move, as an amendment to that motion, the first part of his motion for recommittal, and on this all the other amendments in that group may be discussed.
If the hon. Member's motion is agreed to, I shall put the main Question, as amended, and then call the hon. Member formally to move the second part of his motion relating to petitions against the Bill, and there will be no further proceedings on the Bill today.
If, however, the hon. Member's motion for recommittal is disagreed to, I shall put the main Question and then call the hon. Member for Edgbaston formally to move her new clause. When that and any amendments to it have been disposed of, the remaining amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like clarification of your statement. From the way that Mr. Speaker has willed the selection of amendments, it appears that we shall have only one debate. It would have been more convenient for the House to

debate the recommittal motion and the important issues arising out of that and have another debate on, in effect, the Second Reading of the new clause and amendments to it.
I do not want to take too much time because, like other hon. Members, I like to get home early on a Thursday, but it seems that I shall be able to make only one speech. If I move the recommittal motion, how do I stand in regard to speaking on the various amendments? It seems that they are all to be linked in the one debate. We need clarification before we start otherwise we may get into a procedural wrangle on private business which, as hon. Members know, is a minefield.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are many permutations of the ways in which the amendments could be taken. Mr. Speaker has chosen the way that I outlined. The hon. Member is right when he says that he will be allowed to speak once, but the amendments are before him and he knows what they mean. If he wishes to mention them during his speech, he is entitled to do so. I call on him to move the recommittal motion.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that if the promoters of the Bill are introducing a new clause it has to be referred back automatically to the Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has moved on behalf of the promoters that the Bill be considered. She is hoping later to move a new clause. May we be clear whether the hon. Lady is moving the new clause on behalf of the promoters?
The hon. Lady seems to be in some difficulty. If she is moving the new clause on behalf of the promoters, as it appears, there is no point in going on with the debate, because I understand from our Standing Orders relating to private business that a new clause introduced by the promoters is automatically referred back to the Committee.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may help if I make perfectly clear that in due course I shall be moving the new clause on my own behalf.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is clear that we are considering the recommittal motion, the new clause and the amendments collectively. The promoters are entitled to submit any new clause for the Chair to consider. We have the opportunity to consider it now. May we proceed with the recommittal motion?

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, to leave out "now considered" and to add:
re-committed to the Committee of Selection in respect of any new clause relating to notice of street processions
instead thereof.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I indicated earlier, with this we are taking the following:

New clause 1—

Notice of street processions—

(1) No person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street in a district, unless, at least three days before the procession starts to pass through any street, there has been served on the district council and the chief officer of police a notice stating—

(a) the route by which, and the date and time on and at which, it is intended that it should pass;
(b) the nature of the procession to which the notice relates; and
(c) the name of a person responsible for organising the procession.

(2) If any procession passes through any street in a district by a route or at a time which has not been stated in a notice relating to that procession delivered in accordance with subsection (1) above, except in accordance with directions given by the chief officer of police under section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936 or other directions given by the senior police officer, if any, attending the procession, any person organising or conducting the procession shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to a procession—

(a) commonly or customarily held by a charity which is registered under section 4 of the Charities Act 1960 or excepted from registration by virtue of subsection (4) of that section; or
(b) organised or conducted for the purpose of a funeral by a person acting in the normal course of his business where his business is that of a funeral director.

(b) in the following amendments thereto: paragraph (1), after first 'procession' insert
'of more than two hundred persons'.

(c), in paragraph (1), after first 'district' insert

'at which he believes, or may reasonably be expected to believe, that more than two hundred persons will be present,'.

(d) in paragraph (1), leave out 'three days' and insert 'thirty-six hours'.

(e) after paragraph (1), insert
'(1A) If, for a procession falling within subsection (1) above, there appear to an organiser to be specific and important reasons such that it is not reasonable that the period of notice specified in the subsection should be given, such person may apply to a magistrate for an order to the effect that the subsection shall apply with the substitution of such shorter period of time (which shall be not less than three hours) as the magistrate shall think fit.'.

Amendment No. 9, in clause 113, page 79, line 10, at beginning insert '(1)'.

Amendment No. 10, in clause 113, page 79, line 13, at end insert—
'(2) Proceedings shall not be instituted for any offence under section (Notice of street processions, of this Act, or for any attempt incitement or conspiracy to commit any such offence, unless the proceedings are instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.'

Amendment No. 11, in clause 115, page 79, line 42, at end insert—
'Section (Notice of street processions).'

Mr. Rooker: I have to accept you, rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not seek to challenge them, but this is a most unsatisfactory procedure. It does not matter that the Bill is sponsored by a duly elected local authority. The situation that worries my hon. Friends and myself could also arise if a private individual were sponsoring a Bill.
That person could put into the Bill when it was first published a clause that came within the ambit of the long title and the Standing Orders relating to private business. He could then arrange, with a majority in the House, for that clause to be removed following Second Reading so that when the Bill was in Committee the clause would not exist. He could later arrange, with the help of the same majority that took the clause out, for it to be put back when the Bill was further considered thereby circumventing the rights of petitioners.
That is not satisfactory for a democratic establishment. If we are expected to follow that practice on the Bill before us, I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) will have a damned good reason for asking us to do so. I stand to be corrected


by the procedural experts, but I have found no reference in "Erskine May" or our Standing Orders to such a situation having arisen before.
The only thing that has changed between the Second Reading of the Bill on 7 February and today is that we now have a new Parliament. The House passed, without objection, a carry-over motion. Before the general election, my hon. Friends and I acceded to that motion. We could merely by shouting "Object" have secured a debate. We were aware of the reasons why Private Bills are normally carried over a general election—the expense of promoters and petitioners, and so on. The Bill has arrived back in a new Parliament.
We discover now that one hon. Member is seeking to put back in the Bill a clause that is exectly the same as that which the House voted to take out. I shall not quibble about three days' or seven days' notice being given of a street procession. The House voted to take out the three-day provision. The original clause provided for seven days' notice to be given. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) said on behalf of the promoters that they would seek in Committee to change that provision to three days, but the House threw out the clause despite that concession. To effect, the House threw out the three-day provision. Now that the Bill has come to the new Parliament the hon. Lady, as she has been very careful to point out tonight, is in her own name, moving to seek to put back the clause which the previous Parliament threw out.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the hon. Lady will, in due course, have to argue on behalf of the promoters that the clause should be left out, and on her own behalf that it should be put in.

Mr. Rooker: I am accustomed, as is the House, to listening to the hon. Lady putting forward hypothetical and contradictory arguments. We hear them almost every day of the week. If she proceeds with what she seeks to do tonight, within the rules of the House, I believe that it will show, even for the hon. Lady, an uncharacteristic, authoritarian and anti-democratic streak in her nature. I choose my words carefully, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady

was described in the press this morning as a hard-liner. The press said that that was why she did not get the chairmanship of the 1922 Social Services Back-Bench Committee. But I digress.
My point concerns the petitioners. I know that we are discussing the West Midlands County Council Bill, but there is an important point of principle here. If this matter is allowed to proceed tonight, I am pretty sure that there will be hon. Members—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), told you that he unreservedly accepted Mr. Speaker's ruling, which I, after only six weeks here, thought was the tradition of this House. The hon. Member then proceeds to abuse my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and the standing of other hon. Members in this House, because he has no argument to put forward. We are here to discuss the Bill, and not how many angels can dance on the head of a pin according to the hon. Member for Perry Barr.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is moving towards his recommittal motion.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: He is taking a precious long time about it.

Mr. Rooker: I have made it perfectly clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not challenging the statement that you made. When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) pays for his own whisky, instead of it being bought by private building companies, he can lecture me. Until then, I ask the hon. Member to stay in his seat and let me make my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating the West Midlands Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman please come to the recommittal motion?

Mr. Rooker: That is what I want to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make the point that this matter is not as clear and as straightforward as hon. Members on the Government Benches, who would like it to go through on the nod, would have us believe. There is an important point of


principle here on the rights of petitioners on Private Bills.
Why, for example, do we have a whole volume of Standing Orders on private business which, by any stretch of the imagination, is three times the size of the volume of Standing Orders on public business? The reason, basically, is that private interests are affected. The rules lay down that people cannot be ridden over roughshod by hon. Members and promoters of Private Bills, who may have financial resources over and above those of private individuals, and so lose their rights. Under Standing Orders, any Private Bill goes to Committee, and it is the right of any person affected by the terms of that Private Bill to petition this House of Commons. That right has existed over centuries.
The point that I make on the recommittal motion—I should have thought that it was fairly straightforward—is that the House should not tonight proceed to debate the Second Reading of the new clause as presented on the Order Paper, and that we should not debate the amendments tabled to that new clause by myself and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). The House should allow the clause, like all the other clauses in the Bill, to go to Committee. That would mean that petitioners who had interests that were affected could be heard.
Those petitioners cannot be heard at the Bar of the House tonight. There is no other way in which those affected by the Bill, and who originally petitioned against it, can be heard. I should have thought that it was in the spirit of the democratic traditions of this House for those petitioners to be so heard. One of those petitioners was, of course, the Birmingham trades council. I acted as the agent for that body.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course the House would wish to give the hon. Gentleman plenty of latitude, but is it necessary for him to discuss the already agreed procedures of this House at such length? Is he not now obliged to move on to the substance of the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Rooker.

Mr. Rooker: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was pointing out, one of the petitioners was the Birmingham trades council. I acted as agent and lodged its petition, within the rules of the House. Following the Second Reading of the Bill, and following the vote on the Instruction to take out the clause affecting petitions, I was contacted by the agents for the Bill, Messrs. Sharpe, Pritchard and Company, on 7 February this year. Their letter consisted of three sentences, and I read it for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the House:
As you are aware, the House of Commons yesterday passed a Motion instructing the Committee on this Bill to leave out clause 39. The Committee must accordingly delete that clause and in consequence the matters raised in the above Petition will not arise. I would therefore be grateful if at your convenience you would now arrange for the Petition to be withdrawn
A similar letter was sent to the National Council for Civil Liberties, which had, likewise, gone to the expense, the effort and the time of lodging a petition within the rules and the procedures of the House of Commons.
I did not withdraw the petition on behalf of the Birmingham trades council. I asked the Private Bill Office what would be the consequences of my taking no action. I was told that it would not make any difference. The clause was not in the Bill, it could not be discussed; and the petition could not be heard. It would not make any difference whether I withdrew the petition or not. I chose to leave the petition in the Private Bill Office, and so, I understand, did the National Council for Civil Liberties. I did that because I thought that if at some later date the clause were to come back to the Floor of the House, or in some other way find its way back into the Bill, and I had withdrawn my petition—I lodged it within the rules and procedures of the House—I might unwittingly have deprived those petitioners of the means of having their petition heard.
As I have said, the agents invited me to withdraw the petition. It is clear that the promoters are not proposing to put the clause back. That is clear from what the hon. Lady said. If the promoters were wishing to put the clause back, they would be caught by any one of four Standing Orders between Nos. 175 and


183. Standing Orders on private business are quite complicated, but they generally cover the area. The promoters would be caught by automatically having the new clause referred to the Standing Orders Committee, which would, in the normal course of events, so I am advised, refer the matter back to a Committee on the Bill. That would be so, and only so, that the petitioners could be heard.
That is all that we on the Labour Benches are asking. I do not intend to make another speech on the procession clause. I am fed up with making, and I have no doubt that the House is fed up with listening to, the same speech. But there is plenty of meat in the Bill, the clause and the procedures of this House for one to make a reasonable, logical speech in defence of democracy, which is at stake here tonight. That is what is at stake, not the rights of trade unionists or environmentalists in the West Midlands. It is not about the rights of those who have agreed with planning decisions because they live near an accident black spot. It is not those people whose rights are at stake. It is those bodies corporate probably—who operated under the rules of this place to lodge a petition at great expense.
I cannot believe that this House, in 1979, will overturn the rights of petitioners, entrenched in Standing Orders that their petitions can be heard. For that reason, I believe that the new clause ought to be recommitted to the Committee of Selection. I do not want to go over what is in the petition. I did that on 6 February on Second Reading, at great length and I know that my hon. Friends can go over it again and again if need be.
I must draw attention to some of the points in the new clause to which some of us object and to which we have tabled amendments, as we are entitled to do. In a way, I should have preferred—this is a problem which arises because of a quirk of procedure—to have listened to the speech of the hon. Lady before I was called to make my own. That is not your fault, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I make no complaint about it. But we are extremely concerned about the effect of the new clause on the people of the West Midlands.
It is clear so far from the passage of the various county council Bills through

the House—this is but one of them—that the issue of the procession clause has been contentious on both sides, but there has been only one vote on it. This is an important point to be made. On all the Bills with a procession clause that have come before the House, there has been only one vote on the issue, and that was on the West Midlands County Council Bill, when the House decided to throw the clause out. All the other votes have been on the Second Reading, on the closure, and so on.
Therefore, morally—this point should be made; I think that moral arguments count for something, even nowadays—we have the majority of the House on our side.
Do I hear the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) say something from a sedentary position? Does he wish to intervene?

Mr. Budgen: I apologise. I was following the hon. Gentleman's very bad habit of making a comment from a sedentary position. I agree with him that it is a most undesirable habit. I regret that I caught it from him, and I shall desist from it.

Mr. Rooker: I am quickly trying to learn new good habits, and I shall try as hard as I can. Nevertheless, this is private business, so perhaps for a few hours I can revert to my previous self.
The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Edgbaston contains some objectionable features. We on the Opposition Benches would like to have a debate of reasonable length on the issues raised because, if the matter cannot go back to the Committee of Selection, the voices of my hon. Friends and myself—and those of Liberal Members as well, who take the same stand on the issue—will offer the only way by which the petitioners who duly lodged their petitions can be heard. That is the nub of the argument here tonight.
This is a consolidation Bill. I had just referred to the force of the moral argument when my train of thought was disturbed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. That moral argument is extremely strong. The central point—I have said this before but it must be repeated—is that something has changed since the House, by a majority,


decided to vote the clause out. The composition of the House has changed.

Mrs. Knight: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Lady says "Hear, hear" to that. She may argue that it is good for democracy that, as a result of an election by secret ballot, the composition of the House has changed, but I humbly submit to her that that is no excuse for the overturning of democratic procedures in order to prevent petitioners from having their petitions heard.
I shall be interested to know whether the hon. Lady has discussed the consequences of the procedure that she is using—

Mr. Dudley Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have all listened to the hon. Gentleman for about 24 minutes now. He is fully entitled to make his case, but, having heard him thus far, I suggest that he is now entering into the arguments on the new clause put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). By all means, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to argue against it when it is debated, but is it not an abuse of the House to go on and on on the present motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating on this motion the substance of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss it.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that there is a feeling that this subject has been debated previously, but there are many new Members in the House who were not here for the previous debate, and we should appreciate a full discussion on the issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Rooker.

Mr. Rooker: Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your protection. I note the attitude of hon. Members on the Government Benches. On the original occasion, they did not want a debate. In February, there was a very anti-democratic stance by Conservative Members, and obviously that has not changed since the general election.
I should be interested to hear from the hon. Member for Edgbaston what discussions she has had with the petitioners whose rights she is seeking to circumvent. So far as I am aware, she has had no discussions with the secretary of the Birmingham trades council, Sir David Perris, who has made clear that in the 15 or 18 years during which he has been organising processions in Birmingham he has never had the slightest problem with the police about the route or the timing of a procession organised by trade unions in Birmingham. There has never been any such problem.
The only problems encountered in Birmingham, as elsewhere in the country, have been caused by processions and demonstrations which are outside the scope of these Bills because they come within the scope of the Representation of the People Act, the provisions of which are being overriden. That has been the main cause of the problems in Birmingham.
What discussions has the hon. Lady had with the Birmingham trades council and the National Council for Civil Liberties, both of which have been put to some expense—they are not private corporations or profit-making bodies—in organising their petitions, briefing counsel and being ready to appear before a Committee to present their petitions?
If this were a strictly commercial matter, a Bill affecting commercial interests, there would be uproar on the Government Benches if any Opposition Members used a quirk of procedure that prevented any commercial interest from having its petition heard. Government Members would be screaming hell and high water about the overturning of democracy and the rights of petitioners. Yet, as usual, when they are on the other side of the argument they change their tune.

Mr. Julius Silverman: On the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, that is what they did.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We remember the debates on the hybridity of that Bill to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. The Tories showed their true colours then, when commercial interests were involved, but no such interests are involved here.
I shall put the matter briefly. I do not intend to debate the clause at length, although I am entitled to, as every hon. Member is. Why is the hon. Lady sticking to the point about three days' notice? It has been made clear that this is a consolidation Bill affecting, I think, seven district councils. Basically, it comes about because of local government reorganisation. There is no early reason why we could not have had in the Bill, say, the maximum time limit in any of those districts—36 hours, 48 hours, or whatever it may be. There is no reason for seven days, or even three days.
The Home Secretary said yesterday that he is reviewing the law affecting demonstrations and processions. We submit—or certainly I submit, and I do not presume to speak for anyone else—that there is need for a requirement of notice where it is practicable to give that notice. No one disputes that. There ought to be the right of peaceful procession. I am not advocating any rights for non-peaceful demonstrations or processions. But I think that it ought to apply to the nation as a whole.
I do not see why, because one happens to live in the West Midlands conurbation, one should have this imposition whereas, as in the example I gave earlier, farmers in Warwick or Leamington disagreeing with what the Government are doing in Brussels—a very unlikely event, I should add—and wanting to take their tractors on to the roads and gum up Warwick or Leamington will not be covered by this requirement of notice. The farmers of Warwick and Leamington can do it in one hour, 24 hours, or whatever they like. There is no three days' notice or seven days' notice for them. It is all right for the farmers and all right for anybody outside the conurbation.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that farmers in the Warwick or Leamington area will not be deterred by any legislation if they feel strongly about something. Whichever Government are in power, they will act.

Mr. Rooker: There we have it. It is a whale we have caught, not a tiddler. That is what we get from an hon. Member on the Tory Benches when his interests or commercial interests—or, indeed, the interests of his constituents—are affected. I acknowledge the interest of

his constituents, but when their rights are affected, or when their livelihood, the way they live and work are affected—one has to be careful what one says in this place—we can forget the law. "Whatever the law, we shall take to the streets"—that is what the hon. Gentleman said.
If it is good enough for his constituents, what about mine? If my constituents turn up for work one day and find the factory closed, with no warning and no negotiation, and they want to march to the head office, to the trade union, to the council headquarters or the headquarters of the factory or company, perhaps a multinational company, if it is nearby, they cannot do it. They are caught by the law.
All I ask the hon. Gentleman to do is to give my constituents the same rights as he obviously wants for his own. I ask him not to be selfish. But the difference between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends and myself is that we are not advocating that anyone should break the law. We are here using our democratic right to make sure that laws passed by this place are realistic, are enforceable and, what is more, get the consent of people outside. As the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) has clearly said, if the law does not have the consent of the Government they will not bother with it. The hon. Gentleman has given the House a choice quote for the coming winter.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I merely said—the hon. Gentleman realises this—that no one can stop an individual from taking any line of action if that is what he wishes. I was trying to say that those with independent minds will often adopt peaceful means of demonstrating.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Rooker: In early February I quoted Lord Denning at length. He said that the British people had a common law right to demonstrate peacefully. My constituents wish to avail themselves of that right. Whatever the hon. Gentleman seeks to say between now and the conclusion of the debate, he will not be able to withdraw the implication that was clear in his intervention. When my hon. Friends receive their copies of Hansard, they will be well advised to cut out the hon. Gentleman's intervention for safekeeping during the coming winter.
I am seeking to protect the right to join processions and to demonstrate peacefully. I am not asking for provision to be made to enable riotous assemblies to take place in any of our constituencies. It would be stupid to advocate or to seek such a right. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Conservative Members to cast aspersions on my hon. Friends and myself by claiming that we are trying to encourage our constituents to break the law, fill the streets and cause havoc and mayhem. That is not our purpose.
If this measure gets on to the statute book, it is clear that our constituents will be frustrated when it is used for the first time against, for example, an environmental pressure group. Such a group may choose to demonstrate against the siting of one of the Prime Minister's new nuclear power stations. It is obvious that many new power stations will soon be proposed. There will be trouble when one of those power stations is sited in an area covered by a measure of this kind. I cannot envisage such a power station being sited in the West Midlands conurbation, but the right hon. Lady is so fanatically pro-nuclear that it is possible that it will have one. There will be uproar the first time one of the county council measures is used against a pressure group of law-abiding citizens.
There will be a demand to know what the House was doing when it enacted such a Bill. There will be a demand to know how the rights of those who lawfully petitioned against the clause that we are now considering were overcome by the actions of Conservative Members. There will be a demand to know what happened to democracy in June 1979. My hon. Friends and I will have to explain that a Tory Government were in power and that Tory Back Benchers were whipped on private business. It is as plain as a pikestaff that there has been whipping on the Government Benches.
I know to my cost that the former Labour Government would not move one iota from tradition. It sometimes seems that Labour Governments love tradition more than Conservative Governments do. The previous Labour Government Chief Whip said that that Government would not interfere in private business and would not break the rules.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: That is correct.

Mr. Rooker: I was entitled to ask the previous Government to interfere, but I had to accept their decision. Their attitude was quite right under Standing Orders and the tradition of the House. However, the Government have taken all necessary steps to ensure that their Lobby fodder is present tonight to override the rights of the constituents of my hon. Friends and myself.
I presume that Conservative Members do not wish the rights of petitioners to be heard. Why is that? I invite the hon. Member for Edgbaston to let the House know under what Standing Order she is seeking to override the rights of petitioners. There may be some democrats on the Government Benches who will be interested. I have good reason to believe that a good few Conservative troublemakers were elected on 3 May and that the Governement will have trouble with them. I ask the hon. Lady to tell the House what discusisons she has had with the petitioners. I appeal to her in the spirit of democracy that this place embodies to allow the new clause to be returned.
The hon. Lady probably thinks that she can beat her opponents at any time. If that is so, what is wrong with allowing the new clause to be returned so that the petitioners may be heard? If she is so confident, what is the problem? Is she afraid of the power of argument? Is she afraid of the power of argument of simple trade unionists? Is she afraid of the power of argument of those concerned with civil liberties? Is she worried about that? If so, the hon. Lady and those who support the clause tonight should be ashamed of themselves. If that is their position, they do not deserve the title of hon. Members. If the hon. Lady's troops are present, I do not understand her problem.
Private business does not take up much of the time of the House, but there have been occasions when some private business has been overturned. For example, the Eastbourne Harbour Docks Bill and the Cromarty Harbour Order Confirmation Bill received majority votes for their various parts. However, because in some instances the rights of petitioners had been


overriden, because the power of argument was sufficient and because hon. Members used every nook and cranny of procedure, the Bills were not enacted.
I believe that the Bill should be accepted. I think that it should be passed by the House, but without the proposed new clause. There are parts of the Bill that are urgently needed to replace enactments that have failed. There are parts of the Bill with which I agree but some of my hon. Friends may not. For example, there is a clause that overrides Sunday trading laws for the exhibition centre. I happen to agree with that, but some of my hon. Friends may wish in future to argue about the extension of Sunday trading laws. The Bill includes provisions for the depths of graves. There is a mine of material in the Bill.
If the rights of hon. Members are not allowed, if we consider that the rights of petitioners have been overridden and if we smell that the power of argument is so strong that the supporters of the clause will run away from us, we shall exercise every one of the rights available to us.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I take the first opportunity afforded to me to give my warmest congratulations to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman has great gifts, and I am sure that they will be well used in the service of his party and the House. He has great abilities as a speaker and on occasions he even has charm.
However, I am bound to say that there are times when the hon. Gentleman's charm is overtaken by his venom. I am sorry to say that tonight was one of those occasions. I suggest that in his transmogrification to higher things he learns that he will get a little further with more charm and less venom.
The hon. Gentleman must learn to understand that when there is a change of Government it is perfectly legitimate, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, that changes be made in legislation enacted by a previous Government. We must not believe that, because a previous Parliament passed a measure, this Parliament must follow it up. The hon. Gentleman based part of his argument on the fact that in the pre-

vious Parliament his views were noted and agreed.
It may seem reasonable that petitioners should have an opportunity of being heard. Indeed, I strongly support the concept that Members of Parliament should always give an ear to those outside who feel aggrieved. The hon. Gentleman was interested only in any petitions against the Bill that were presented in the previous Session of Parliament. Much of his argument fell to the ground, as he made a plea only on behalf of four groups of people.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The case depends on the two Parliaments. There is a procedure. I refer to the carry-over motion that enables a Bill to move from one Parliament to the next. That is a rare procedure, available only for Private Bills. It means that there is special treatment for Private Bills. It is difficult to argue that the petitioners to a previous Parliament should be treated differently in this Parliament. If so, there should not have been a carry-over motion. The whole matter should have started again and those involved should have had the opportunity to petition this Parliament.

Mrs. Knight: I knew that I was wrong to give way to the hon. Gentleman at this stage. My kind heart overcame the direction of my mind. I am sorry. It will not happen again. The points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be fully covered in my speech.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr made a case for four petitioners: the Birmingham trades council, the West Midlands group of the National Council for Civil Liberties, the No. 3 divisional council of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs—no doubt great significance must be attached to the "No. 3"—and the National Association of Funeral Directors. Those four petitioners, which were referred to in the motion, dealt with matters of public policy. None dealt with alleged damage to local interests or private rights. That is important. The interests of the funeral directors are not affected by the new clause, as funeral processions are exempt. My remarks apply to the other three petitioners.
Originally, there were objections from the boy scouts, the Boys' Brigade, the girl guides and other such bodies. All those objections were withdrawn. Those


bodies recognised that there was no curtailment of their rights because, as a matter of courtesy, they already gave notice of their intended processions to the police.
At one point the hon. Gentleman referred—this happened on one of the occasions when venom overcame charm—to newspaper reports. I do not know how this was intended to advance the argument in favour of his motion or against the new clause. He said that he had read in this morning's paper that because of my views I had not been appointed chairman of a 1922 Back Benchers' committee. I have had the great honour to be elected member of the executive committee of the 1922 Committee, which some hon. Members consider more prestigious.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative Party could not change its tune now that it had come into power. It is extraordinary that tonight he is radically changing his tune from his attitude when Labour was in power. He must learn that he cannot seek to change the rules half way through a game just because he is losing.
On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman was adamant that this was a matter for the House to decide. His former actions made it absolutely certain that no petitioners would be heard. When his party could command a majority in the House he said that this was a matter for the House. He must not change his tune now that he is in opposition. What was good when his party was in government—in not allowing petitioners—should be good now that he is a member of the Opposition. He must be consistent. He wants the position to be reversed. He now wants the petitioners to be heard. That argument does not appeal to me. He made his case strongly and forcibly for the other side of the argument when his party was in power. That argument was carried. He must understand that he cannot turn about now and change his mind.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Rooker: I do not accept what the hon. Lady said. I have never said that the rules and procedures of the House have been circumvented. At no time have I advocated that the rights of petitioners should be overridden. It is within the competence of Parliament to make its decisions. It will make one tonight.

That is not the point at issue. The point is whether the hon. Lady is, at this point in the procedure, circumventing the rights of those outside, after the previous Parliament made a decision and before the carry-over motion? If she thinks that the carry-over motion would have been carried, she is very much mistaken.

Mrs. Knight: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, I must remind him of exactly what he tabled. I have it here to hand. He deposited the petition of the Birmingham trades council, and tabled the following motion:
That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 109 clause 39 of the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House and that the remainder of the Bill be referred to the Committee of Selection.
In other words the hon. Gentleman was saying that a Committee of the whole House must decide, not the Committee. He now says the exact opposite. That is my point.

Mr. Rooker: No.

Mrs. Knight: The House must decide for itself whether the hon. Gentleman is being consistent. The motion to which I referred is on record. The hon. Gentleman now takes the opposite view.

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the House in Committee or at the consideration stage? There is one big difference. Part of the procedure will have been bypassed. I submitted that the matter should be committed to a Committee of the whole House. However, it never got that far.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Knight: I shall allow hon. Members to decide who is speaking more consistently on this matter.
I shall take up another point made by the hon. Gentleman, the question whether farmers could decide to process with their tractors. One of the difficulties about this question is that there are different rules in different parts of the country. In some parts of the country there are laws such as those that we seek to pass tonight. In other areas the position is different.
We can deal in the West Midlands County Council Bill only with the West Midlands, and that is what we are trying to do. It is no business of ours to refer


to things which happen in other parts of the country where the rules are not so clear or laid down in the same way. We are dealing only with this Bill. We are also dealing with city streets, and that is a very different matter from dealing with urban and country roads. Ordinary members of the public encounter great difficulty if they suddenly find that no protection can be given to them by the police when they are on their way to or from work, or going shopping or somewhere else, and the route is totally blocked by the sudden eruption of a procession.

Mr. David Winnick: If it is not necessary in other parts of the country, including London, why should this restriction apply in the West Midlands? It is not good enough for the hon. Lady to say that she is not concerned with other parts of the country. If such restrictions do not exist elsewhere and it is not considered necessary that they should exist, why should such a restriction apply to the West Midlands area?

Mrs. Knight: I shall go over this point again. I am sorry that the hon. Member was not, apparently, listening to me. I did not say that I did not care about other parts of the country. What I said was—and this is true—that we are debating this evening the West Midlands County Council Bill. We are not debating legislation concerning other parts of this country. I am sure that the hon. Member will, on reflection, recognise that it is true to say that different conditions obtain in different parts of the country.
Why, for instance, do we have a 30 m.p.h. speed limit on the roads in some areas and a 70 m.p.h. limit in others? On the basis of exactly the same argument as has been put forward, it could equally be said that the speed limit ought to be the same everywhere. The point is that in different parts of the country different rules must apply for the protection of the public, and this is one such part.
This issue has indeed been very well ventilated, and not only in the last Parliament. I would emphasise, in reply to the comment made earlier that we ought to debate the matter fully, that the principle has already been debated pretty fully.

Mr. George Cunningham: May I invite the

hon. Lady to take the point about different legislation in different parts of the country a little further? It is known that she is an hon. Member who favours capital punishment. Is she telling us that it would be sensible to have a different punishment available for a crime in one part of the country as against another? Although that is putting the point at its most extreme, the same principle is involved in the point that she made.

Mrs. Knight: I have a nasty feeling that I should be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to pursue an argument on the rights or wrongs of capital punishment at this time. Surely the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that there are different circumstances on urban roads from those in the city. We have before us a piece of legislation which is not intended to cover the whole country but which deals only with the West Midlands. I submit that that is all that we are entitled to speak about at this time.

Mr. George Cunningham: There are urban and rural roads in the West Midlands area, and there are urban roads in the London area, so that the difference between doing it in local legislation and national legislation is not a question of taking account of local circumstances. It is a question whether some things ought to be done by national legislation or by local legislation.

Mrs. Knight: I agree with the hon. Gentleman there is a strong case for having a uniform time of notice of street processions, and that there are some aspects of today's circumstances which are not satisfactory. Nevertheless, we cannot possibly deal with all Bills in all places when we are dealing with the West Midlands. We are dealing only with this area, and that is what I am trying to deal with in this speech. I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that there are specific difficulties in Birmingham. For example, we have to have special grants in one form or another because of the problems that we face. This is well understood by hon. Members and by members of local authorities.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Knight: I must give notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to weary the House with a long speech, and


interventions make long speeches. I shall therefore give way once more, and this will be the last time.

Mr. Spearing: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am not a West Midlands Member but a London Member. Nevertheless, I have a vote on this matter, as a Member of the House of Commons. Will the hon. Lady enlarge on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is also a London Member? What are the specific conditions in the West Midlands in regard to which she thinks that special provisions should apply, provisions for which the London local authorities have not yet applied, and which apparently are not considered by them to be necessary?

Mrs. Knight: It is not my business—and it would be presumptuous of me if I were to pretend that it is—to tell the London authorities how they should run things in their own area. I can only speak and act in this debate on this evening on this particular piece of legislation. I hope that hon. Members will not keep dragging in points which are absolutely irrelevant.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Lady answer the question?

Mrs. Knight: It is utterly irrelevant. If we were having a debate on matters affecting London, I would listen most carefully. I recommend the hon. Member to do the same when Members are speaking for their own areas, and not to attack them because they are not speaking for his area.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Lady give us a reason?

Mrs. Knight: The matter has been well ventilated, and I have no intention of rehearsing all the arguments again.
The Bill has a long history. It was deposited in November 1977, and even that was after some two or three years in its preparation. It started in the other House, and it was subjected there to the closest possible scrutiny. This principle was scrutinised more than perhaps any other in the Bill. The Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 7 December 1978, opposed by petitioners,

and considered by a Committee which sat from 13 March to 28 March 1979. That Committee went through the Bill and made numerous amendments.
The Bill as deposited contained 182 clauses. As introduced into the second House, it contained 132 clauses. It now contains 122 clauses. We have had this Bill and its contents discussed again and again by Members of this House and Members of another place. Therefore, I submit that the matter has been well ventilated.
I should like briefly to touch on the points which led me to put down my new clause. The question really is whether we are to help the police keep our streets clear and negotiable. That is what the Bill is about. Although the hon. Member for Perry Barr may say that it is not his intention—and I am sure it is not—in seeking to delete the clause, to have riotous processions, how on earth could he stop them becoming riotous? We have seen the sort of mischief which can arise from processions when rival gangs become involved. In Birmingham we have even had paving stones torn up and hurled by rivals in demonstrations. Labour Members who represent parts of Birmingham will well recall the occasion to which I am referring. It was extremely dangerous for the people of the city, and very bad indeed for the traders.
8 p.m.
Are we or are we not to recognise the rights of peaceable citizens to go about their business unhampered? That is what we are really discussing. There is no denial of the right to march. If there were in this Bill a denial of the rights of people to express themselves by marching or demonstrating I would oppose it. Nothing in my new clause stops people with genuine reasons making their feelings on any subject known and understood. They are still perfectly able to do so. All they have to do is to give notice that they intend to march. Is that really a denial of human rights? Labour Members indicate that they think it is. They have an odd idea of human rights. Naturally there is a right for people to march or process peaceably, but they do not have the right to overturn the day-to-day life of a city at the drop of a hat. That is what the new clause is about.
Anyone who wishes to process can still do so. Is it not a reasonable point to make that organisers of a procession are required to give notice to the people who are to join in that procession? It cannot all happen in a flash of light. The organisers of processions are, therefore, well aware a few days beforehand that there will be a procession. They are perfectly able to give notice to the police in their area of their intention to march, so that the public can be protected.
I do not quite understand what it is that Opposition Members find so offensive in the police ensuring citizens' rights to walk through a city to do their shopping or to go to their place of work. What is so wrong about ensuring the rights of ordinary people? The ordinary citizen has a right to get to his or her place of work without let or hindrance. That is what he Bill is about.

Mr. Denis Howell: rose—

Mrs. Knight: I gave notice before the right hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber that I would not give way again. I am sure that he would appreciate my point if he had been here at the start of my speech, let alone the start of the debate.

Mr. Howell: rose—

Mrs. Knight: I said I would not give way—

Mr. Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Lady will withdraw with the usual courtesy when I inform her that I have heard every word of her speech.

Mrs. Knight: If that is so, and knowing the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy, I find it surprising that he seeks to ask leave to break a rule which I made earlier. However, because I have respect for the right hon. Gentleman I shall make one last exception and give way to him.

Mr. Howell: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady. Although we obviously have some sympathy with her desire to protect people from the undesirable effects of processions, the problem is whether this is the right way in which to deal with it or whether it will create many anomalies. If a football club holds a match and its supporters organise a pro-

cession from the railway station to the football ground—or, indeed, the police themselves organise it, as they commonly do in such circumstances—would they be breaking the law if the hon. Lady's clause was passed? For example, would the chief constable be responsible for any damages caused by the failure of the procession, which his policemen had organised, to stay within the law?

Mrs. Knight: I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman advances a poor case. Of all the terrorism that has been meted out to poor innocent citizens, quite a lot must be put down to football fans going on the rampage. For that reason I must tell the right hon. Member that my clause would, indeed, stop such a procession taking place. When football matches take place—the right hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about this, because he is aware that whenever certain football teams cone to the city of Birmingham the police are especially on the qui vive—trouble frequently breaks out.

Mr. Howell: They organise the procession.

Mrs. Knight: That is the very point I am making. If they organise the procession, they must give notice to the police of their intention. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but a constituent of mine recently wrote a letter to me about a very harrowing experience that she had had on a train bringing football fans down to London via Birmingham. A man was murdered on that train by one of the football fans. Opposition Members should understand that that is not funny. It is not amusing to have insults and violence offered, and difficulties put in the way of peaceable citizens by football fans. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore put a very bad case.
I believe that I am in order to continue now with the amendments which have not yet been moved. May I have your guidance on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They will not be moved at this stage. The hon. Lady may speak to them and they will then be moved formally later, if required.

Mrs. Knight: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to the amendments tabled by


various Opposition Members and deal with them as briefly as I can.
Amenedment (b) seems to be aimed at excluding my new clause from applying to processions of fewer than 200 persons. I am not clear whether the words which are to be inserted after the word "district" refer to those taking part in the procession, or whether they include other persons in the street. It is far from clear. There are more than 100 precedents for the principle of this clause, none of which lays down the number of people that must take part before a new clause can operate. This amendment is nonsense.
Fewer than 200 persons can cause considerable disruption if they are so minded. How on earth would the organisers know, prior to the demonstration, whether there would be 200, 201 or any other number? It is well known that those who organise such demonstrations are often like the sorcerer's apprentice, because the procession or demonstration often gets much bigger and more violent than originally intended. How on earth would the organisers know who would come along? If it is not clear that members of the pubic may well be included in the 200, then it is an extremely odd amendment.
There would also be an open opportunity for some trouble-makers—and some people who organise processions are undoubtedly trouble-makers—to come along. Some unscrupulous persons such as that might say "We did not know all these people would come. We did not know that up to 350 people would actually turn up on the day. We intended that there should be only 199 people present, your honour "The troubles which could arise as a result of the amendment do not require a great deal of imagination.
Amendment (d) seeks to leave out "three days" and insert "thirty-six hours". It is true that some local authorities have different periods of notice. I have taken the trouble to check the times involved. None fails to set down the legal period of notice in respect of Sundays or bank holidays, as the amendment would. In any case, 36 hours is not sufficient time for the police to make arrangements to safeguard the public. After all, three days is a very

short time. The police are under stress, as I am sure Labour Members on the Front Bench will understand perhaps even more than Labour Back Benchers.
It is not easy suddenly to call on extra men. Leave has to be cancelled and people have to be brought in from holidays and so on. I do not believe that 36 hours is a sufficient time for the police to be able to protect the public, particularly when no condition is laid down in respect of Sundays and bank holidays.
Amendment (e) would allow a magistrate to change the new clause by himself deciding to substitute a shorter time of notice. Had the hon. Member for Perry Barr and his hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) sought advice from the Magistrates' Association on this point, I am sure that they would have had a unanimous protest from the association. I rather fear that they failed to ask for the association's views.
I ask hon. Members to consider the strain that would be imposed on magistrates if they themselves were able to decide whether a certain procession could be absolved from giving the police proper notice. What a terrible responsibility it would be if a magistrate, acting for the best, gave a green light for a procession to go forward, which later caused trouble! As hon. Members know, pressures currently bear down not only on magistrates but also on the courts of this land. I do not believe it is either practicable or fair to place this extra burden on them.
Amendment (e) also gives no opportunity for the district council or police to be notified. It makes no provision for giving effect to such an order, if made. However, one thing which can be said for the amendment is that it is a novel method of varying an Act of Parliament.
It was not my intention to speak at length, but these points are of extreme importance. No doubt we shall hear other arguments later, but I have no doubt that it is right and proper in the interests of the public, chiefly and the police, secondly, that my new clause should be passed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I rise to support first the recommittal of the Bill and, secondly, the amendments standing in my name and


that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).
At the beginning of the debate I said that if the promotors were in any way in support of the new clause it seemed to me that under the Standing Orders the matter ought to go back automatically for recommittal. At that stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you obviously felt that you were unable to intervene. Therefore, unless the recommittal motion is carried, it may well be that the petitioners will have a right—as I understand they have—to appeal to the Standing Orders Committee on private business, and there could well be an argument lasting some time before the Bill completes its stages.
8.15 p.m.
It would seem reasonable for the recommittal to take place at this stage so that that possible procedural difficulty could be avoided. In addition, the advantage of recommittal would be that the amendments that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has just attacked, could be considered in a little more detail and a compromise reached.
When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) originally presented the Bill on behalf of the promoters, he was very willing to try to discuss ways of getting around some of the problems. It seems that the hon. Lady does not want to be conciliatory, or to try to find ways in which individual freedom can be protected. It seems that she prefers to ride roughshod over these considerations.
Another important consideration is how long the Standing Orders Committee will take to consider the rights of petitioners. Perhaps that does not concern the hon. Lady, since she seems to think that if she carries the Bill tonight it will be the end of the matter. I can assure her that if there is not a recommittal of the Bill the petitioners may well want to raise the matter with the Standing Orders Committee, because in my view they have been denied a basic right, which is to present a petition in respect of anything that remains in the Bill, In so far as there appears to be collusion, in that the hon. Lady has acted in two capacities—her own, in moving the new clause, and on behalf of the promoters—I would

have thought that there was a strong case for recommittal.
I now turn to the amendments. In amendment (b), which seeks to limit the new clause to processions of more than 200 people, I accept that we may not have got the wording perfectly clear and that there could be some negotiation about the wording, but the basic point is that this is a cumbersome procedure for people who want to organise small demonstrations, particularly where those small demonstrations relate to local matters or matters that have a considerable immediacy.
There has been a lot of discussion about what happens after a road accident, especially when a local community has been pressing for some time that a zebra or pelican crossing should be installed. Under those circumstances, the local community may want to take some action pretty quickly. Very often that action is to stop traffic altogether, simply by walking backwards and forwards across the road. It is often the police themselves who say to the people "We believe that you have a strong case. Why not go in procession to the council offices and stress that something should be done about this particular black spot?" It does not go down very well to tell those people "Ah, but you must give three days' notice, and when all the heat has gone out of the matter you can hold your procession". What those people want is to be able to do something immediately, and very often the police recognise that.
Are we saying that if the police believe that people have a good case they will forget about the three days' notice but, on the other hand, if they do not particularly agree with a local demonstration they will enforce the law? If that is what is being said, it is a very bad law. Therefore, there is a very good argument for saying that small processions ought to be exempt.
If 200 people walk down the street, they take about the same space as three double decker buses. Do we need a large number of policemen to escort three double-decker buses down the street? Of course not. Therefore, if small demonstrations were exempt it would immediately remove from the Bill the problem of


those demonstrations which have immediacy and which cause little or no problems for the police. I would have thought that one or other of the two forms of the amendment—either amendment (b) or amendment (c)—would have been acceptable to the promoters.
I come to amendment (d), which would reduce the period of notice from three days to 36 hours. We are well aware that in the West Midlands there are varying provisions, although I understand that in Birmingham there is no requirement to give notice. However, in some of the other boroughs that make up the West Midlands there are requirements to give various periods of notice. Since this is supposed to be a consolidation measure, the strongest argument seems to be to have a common period of notice. I believe that in Coventry there is a requirement to give 36 hours' notice, but it is odd that when people recently checked with Coventry council they were assured "We do not bother with that any longer. There is no need to give notice at all" However, a requirement of 36 hours throughout the West Midlands seems to be a reasonable compromise. On the other hand, it does not give the police what they require—plenty of notice. If they are to lose their time off, they will certainly want some notice of it.
However, neither does the three days give sufficient notice. We want reasonable people to give as much notice as possible and, of course, reasonable people do. The Bill is trying to make them into unreasonable people. People will say "If we have to give the police only three days' notice, we shall give them only the minimum notice" One can see that attitude developing. However, if we left it on the custom and practice basis that has developed in Birmingham over the years—most reasonable people give much more than three days' notice—that would be a much better way to proceed. I ask the House to consider very carefully reducing the period of notice from three days to 36 hours.
I turn to the provision for magistrates. I admit that this is a device. We all know that at the time of Suez many people throughout the country immediately went out and demonstrated. We also know that at the time of the Cuba missile crisis many people demonstrated

in the streets. It is one of the fundamental rights of this country that on occasions of either national or international importance, people have a right to demonstrate immediately. They do not have to give three day's notice. If they had to do that for those sorts of demonstrations, it would be pretty pointless, because the reason for the demonstrations would have passed.
We have to try to find some way in which one can provide an exemption to people when there is a major issue—an international crisis or a major issue in this country. They are the issues about which people want action immediately.
It is suggested that there should be someone who can make a judgment whether the demonstration needs to take place quickly or whether three days' notice should be given. Magistrates are sufficiently respectable and impartial to make that judgment—and make it impartially. If the hon. Member for Edgbaston is interested in preserving freedom, she could suggest someone else who might act as arbitrator and decide whether something is of sufficient significance and importance to waive the three-day rule that she proposes.
Therefore, I hope that on the ground of simple justice to the petitioners and also on the purely procedural point of the right to go to the Standing Orders Committee if the petitioners' wishes are not upheld, at least to present their petition, the recommittal motion will be carried. If it is not, I hope that the House will defeat the new clause, or at least consider the amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and myself.

Mr. David Bevan: I rise to make my maiden speech. I have to admit that it is a very long time since I bowled a maiden over.
I come here knowing that I share a name that is hallowed in this House—that of a great parliamentarian. I wish that I could emulate him, but I am sure that I shall be unable to do so. He was on the opposite Benches. He was Nye, and I am Dai.
I am the blue Bevan, and I am putting the thesis of the blue arguments because, frankly, when I listened to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), with his interjections, and


the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I was surprised that they were speaking for a Birmingham and a West Midlands of which I know nothing. I was surprised by their protests and representations. I speak for the people of Yardley, which was called Ger-lie and which existed for a thousand years before the Domesday Book. Those people of Ger-lie and Yardley, that clearing in the forest as it originally was, want me to put their points of view, and I shall put them.
They are people who possibly might ban all marches altogether when they see and sense that freedom becomes liberty and then becomes licence and offends the rest of society. They are people who would not split hairs about 36 hours or three days, but who might wipe everything out when it impinges on the individual and on society.
I speak as a member of the Birmingham city council for 15 years and of the West Midlands county council, the promoting authority, for five years. I hope that I know the feelings of those people of the West Midlands who ask that the amendments of Opposition Members be totally rejected and that those of my hon. Friends are included and embraced within the spirit and the letter of the Bill.
I have served on the police authority in Birmingham, and I have also led a march around Birmingham with the previous Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—who has been replaced, happily, by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,. Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). However, even the former Member for Selly Oak gave, with me, three days' notice of our intention—I think that we gave a little more notice than that—before that march took place, peaceably and happily.
I bear in mind other marches and demonstrations in Birmingham. I bear in mind the time when the police had to give way and the Saltley gas works were closed down by a massive demonstration and march. Authority was thwarted then, when the forces of law and order were subverted and defeated. The then leader of the West Midlands county council placed a miner's helmet in his office as his emblem. The present leader, who is in this Chamber today as an observer, replaced that immediately he took over with a policeman's helmet and, I hope, rectified the balance.
I remember, as will the right hon. Member for Small Heath, the massive march and demonstration in Digbeth about two years ago. My father's old ter—in Digbeth institute, now the civic church—he was a Congregational minis-hall, was currently booked by the National Front. A massive march and demonstration caused £1 million worth of costs and damage, until the police isolated the source of ammunition—all the cobblestones and bricks from a building site. Dangerous things took place. There was a danger to life and limb.
There comes a time when the people say "That is quite enough. We must take action". I remember the situation in Ladywood, as will may right hon. and hon. Members. Dangerous things took place there. Extremists of both factions marched and counter-marched, and counter-marched again. Property was damaged. Life and limb were in danger. The cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer in the provisioning of the police rose and rose, such that the taxpayers in my constituency of Yardley can hardly afford to meet the bill.
We have noticed, especially since the war, the erosion of democracy and liberty. We have seen more of our laws nodded through the Privy Council rather than debated on the Floor of this honourable House. We have noticed legislation—whether it be on drinking and driving, or on driving and parking, or on all sorts of matters—being enacted which has deprived us of that innate liberty which all of us as Britons thought we enjoyed. Why is it so wrong to amend the laws in the defence of society rather than amend the laws against the individual? It is a perfectly right and proper thing to do.
8.30 p.m.
It is traditional to give statistics. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in whom I detected a Scottish accent, was debating the affairs of the West Midlands and deciding what we wanted. I shall tell him what is the right and might of Birmingham and the West Midlands, and why the Bill should be supported. Birmingham has a population of 1,600,000, a gross rate expenditure of over £261 million and a rateable value of £106 million. The population in the


West Midlands is 2¾ million, the gross expenditure is £208 million and the rateable value is £380 million. These are people, these are figures and these matters must be properly debated and passed through the House. I ask that we support these amendments.
While the events were occurring in Nazi Germany there were arguments about liberty and democracy. I have heard the argument that:
When they came to arrest the Jews
I did not protest
When they arrested the Catholics
I did not protest
Because I was neither Jewish or Catholic
And then they came and arrested me
And there was nobody left to protest
I know that argument. Hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches are right to believe that those arguments are innate, but we are discussing how to defend society in a proper and reasonable manner.
I say to the right hon. Member for Small Heath that there have been regrettable happenings in the football demontrations, be they processions or not. It has cost vast amounts of money and the ratepayers of Yardley bitterly resent paying those sums. If the right hon. Member has not seen the bus seats cut open, I shall willingly show them to him in Tyburn Road. He must realise that we need measures to deal with these problems.
On behalf of the people of Yardley I ask not only for the three-day notice amendment but, if necessary, to surrender the right when it becomes licence instead of liberty. I call for the return of capital punishment in this country and I shall vote for it at the appropriate time—the law in Scotland is different—and also for the return of corporal punishment and stiffer sentences, properly administered. I noted that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) strictured us on what we should do. However, we are Midlanders and know what we want.
I accept the innocuous and minor amendment and ask the House to promise the West Midlands that we shall do everything possible to support the Bill, as amended.

Mr. Denis Howell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan)

on the delivery of his maiden speech. Yardley has always produced interesting hon. Members, and from the Labour Benches we pay tribute to his predecessor, our colleague—

Mr. Bevan: I regrettably and unintentionally omitted that. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to pay great tribute to my predecessor. He was a very nice man. Hon. Members whom I meet still wish to be remembered to him. I could not have beaten a nicer man. I apologise.

Mr. Howell: We are grateful that the hon. Gentleman has intervened to pay that tribute. It is well deserved. Mr. Syd Tierney was held in great esteem by the House.
I know of the hon. Gentleman's father in his role as a Congregational minister, and, as he knows, I have attended meetings in his church. I also know other members of the hon. Gentleman's family. I hope that he will not mind my saying that many of us were inhibited by the fact that he was making a maiden speech. We were not able to interrupt as we would have liked and deal with some of his aggressive points, not least his proposal that organisers of marches who have not given notice should be subject to corporal or capital punishment, or probably both.
Most of us share the fear and concern of many people about the results of marches and some counter-marches. We are all anxious to protect people from the worst excesses of improper behaviour and we recognise that the police often have a difficult job and that they need as much support as possible. However, we must ask ourselves whether the West Midlands county council is right to seek unilaterally this sort of legislation or whether it would be better for the Home Office to bring forward national legislation, having consulted the local authority associations and achieved a sensible degree of uniformity around the country. Most important of all, we must ask ourselves whether these proposals would actually work and whether they have been well thought through.
It is because we do not think they are well thought through, and we do not think that they will work in practice, or that proper consideration has been given to a national approach, that many of us find it impossible, judging by what we


have heard today from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) to support something that might make matters worse than ever.
Earlier, in an interjection I mentioned the question of football supporters. Of course nobody in the country has spent more time than I in trying to deal with the abuses and misbehaviour of some football supporters. The hon. Lady raised the matter of the killing of a person on a train, which I raised yesterday on the Front Bench, but I cannot go into it now because there is a criminal charge pending. Obviously we are all very concerned about that. However, this Bill has nothing to do with train journeys and the hon. Lady's response to me is therefore totally irrelevant.

Mrs. Knight: Is the right hon. Member not seized of the fact that he was the one who raised the question of football supporters? In reply, I was simply trying to make the point—quite successfully I thought—that football supporters of all groups were those from whom the public needed and deserved protection.

Mr. Howell: In spite of all the working party recommendations that I have produced, the hon. Lady must recognise that we are dealing with a tiny minority. Most football supporters in this country—in fact, 99 per cent. of them—are decent, law-abiding citizens. Has the hon. Lady considered the fact that when they get off trains and coaches they are often organised in processions to go to the football ground? What happens if someone organises them into a procession—often these processions are of official supporters of clubs—and they are set upon by people lying in wait for them as they move in an orderly manner from the railway station to the football ground? That is why the police, or stewards from the football club itself, escort them to the ground on many occasions.
I put this question to the hon. Lady: are these football supporters who are organised into a procession protected under this Bill, or are the organisers, who might be the police themselves, liable for any disorder that occurs in that procession? The hon. Lady has not tried to answer this question. I wish she would, because it could be a matter of considerable importance.

Mrs. Knight: The matter has been clearly outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, who said a few moments ago that the police knew that these events were to take place and gave protection.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: How do the police know?

Mrs. Knight: The police are well aware that a match is taking place, and frequently notice is given. Where protection is required, there is no question but that notice is given to the police. The police know the date and time of a match, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is well aware of that fact. It is no secret from the police, and the police take action on that information. But if football supporters or anybody else take it on themselves to organise a procession from which violence may result they must give notice, in common with everybody else.

Mr. Howell: I am grateful for that explanation, but I am afraid that it does not help. The truth is that it is only when the supporters have got off the train and the situation is assessed in the light of potential and probable trouble that those concerned are organised into a procession. This sometimes happens at five minutes' notice. Even though there may be a little truth in what the hon. Lady says, in that the date of the match is known and the police, hypothetically, could give notice to themselves or to their local authority, what happens in the third round of the Cup when, unexpectedly, a draw takes place on a Saturday afternoon at 4.45 p.m. and the match is due to be replayed on the Monday at 7 p.m.? In such circumstances it is almost impossible to give notice in the statutory time available. This renders this proposal absurd.
I would rather see the flexibility in the hands of the police, so that notice has to be given and so that the police themselves will be left to decide what is a reasonable time. I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that most sensible people want to give as much notice as they can, but the police often find themselves in difficulties. Surely the police welcome flexibility.
There may be occasions when the police in the West Midlands will have to cope with six first division football matches in


their area. On that day the police would take the view that they could not also cope with a march by the National Front or anybody else. Therefore, those concerned will be persuaded to stage their procession on another day. There may be other Saturdays when that is not the position.

Mrs. Knight: The police asked for this provision.

Mr. Howell: I know that the police have requested this provision. I am trying to point out the dangers. I have the highest regard for the West Midlands police.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Lady has just said that the police asked for this rule. Do I understand that she is now promoting this clause on behalf of the police? If that is her view, she is in breach of Standing Orders, which point out that if the promoters of a Bill wish to introduce a new clause, the Bill in question must be recommitted.

Mr. Howell: I am not sure on whose behalf the hon. Lady is promoting this provision. I assume that it is the West Midlands county council, which includes the police authority.
I wish now to deal with another danger, which has not been thought through. The hon. Member for Yardley drew a parallel with Nazi Germany when it eventually became necessary for some people to demonstrate because, one by one, they were being picked off and eliminated. The hon. Gentleman said that in those circumstances there was not only a right but a positive duty for people to protest. I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman in that view. There are times when people believe that they have not only a right but a duty to protest. These will be spontaneous eruptions, as it were, on the body politic when decent people take the view "We cannot tolerate this situation any longer. We must stand up and be counted."
8.45 p.m.
The result of the clause will be demonstrations without leaders. If people wish to demonstrate spontaneously on a matter about which they feel strongly, nothing will stop them doing so. If it is an offence to demonstrate without giving three days' notice, demonstrations will be organised

in a leaderless manner. That will be more damaging and dangerous to the police.
For many years I served on the Birmingham watch committee, and every policeman I have known has wanted to have a commonsense arrangement with the organisers of demonstrations and meetings. It is in the interests of the police and also in the interests of harmony within the local community to do so.
Do we really wish to have leaderless spontaneous demonstrations? We do not, and that is the second major reason why I am against the proposals.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I have personal experience of the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is making. In my constituency I took part in a non-political march protesting against the attempted closure of the Duchess of York hospital in Manchester. The march was led by inexperienced, non-political people. A certain political element entered into that march for its own purposes and attempted to divert it from the route that had been agreed to another route that would have caused great inconvenience to traffic. It was only because a Conservative Member was with me on the march that we, with our experience, were able to prevent that happening. My right hon. Friend is making an extremely valid point.

Mr. Howell: That is a third point that I now come to, which concerns the provisions that hold the organisers responsible for everything that happens during the march, even though they could not possibly be responsible for some of the occurrences, diversions and deviations that take place.
It is ludicrous to be able to say to the organisers of a march "If your march causes trouble, even though it happens against your strongest advice, and even though you have done everything possible to avoid it, it is still your fault". That is how I read the clause, and it is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads.
A penalty of £200 can be imposed on organisers if they fail to keep the marchers in line. They would need the wisdom of Solomon and the discipline of


a field marshal on some occasions if they were to guarantee to keep every one of their supporters in line. If marchers step out of line and cause trouble, they should be dealt with by the police, taken before the courts and made to answer for the troubles they have created. I am in favour of that, but it is absurd to place that responsibility upon the organisers.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) asked, what is to be done about people who try to cash in on marches, to take them over, to pervert the original purpose of the march in the pursuit of extremist politics? That situation often arises. What does one say to the leaders of the respectable and reasonable march when that occurs? Are they to be made responsible when Left-wing factions try to cash in?

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain his statement that the organiser or conductor as so defined would be held responsible for all that happened during a march? Subsection (2) states that if an organiser fails to give notice in the prescribed form, he is guilty of a criminal offence. That does not mean that he is responsible for all that happens during a march. As we are dealing with the details of the Bill, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use such loose expressions.

Mr. Howell: I am not a barrister, like the hon. Gentleman. Surely any court applying subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) to the considerations in subsection (2) would hold that any deviation from the route or any difficulties created, whether at the behest of or against the advice of the organiser, would be the responsibility of the organiser. That is my reading of it.
I hope that the Minister—who is a silk—will convince the House that if there is a diversion—a change in the direction of the route of the march because of un foreseen circumstances such as those that we have just been discussing—the leaders of the march will not be held responsible. I am sure that all hon. Members will receive that information gladly. However, it is not the impression that we have received hitherto.
I came here today not intending to speak but merely to listen. However, the more I look at the Bill and apply my knowledge of sport and football, and what

goes on Saturday afternoons around the country, and the more I begin to think through the Bill and to understand where it will take us—not only in football but in the area of great emotional occasions of leaderless marches or demonstrations—I believe that it is a bad Bill. We have no business in giving it support this evening.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): It will be helpful to the House if I intervene at this stage to give the Government's view on the matters raised in the debate. However, before doing so, I have two great pleasures ahead of me. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) on his maiden speech. Those hon. Members who are not from the West Midlands have learned to expect from colleagues who are from that part of the country the most vigorous and forthright expression of views on behalf of their constituents, an expression that is based on deep feeling and understanding of those views. In my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley the House has acquired a distinguished proponent of that tradition. I congratulate him on starting his career in so forthright and vigorous a manner.
It is also a pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on his debut from the Opposition Front Bench. I feel like one debutante congratulating another—only slightly later in the season. I do so having been involved in debates with him in the last Parliament and with great pleasure.
The question of the national requirement for notice of processions has been raised. During last week's debate on the Cheshire County Council Bill I stated clearly that it was the Government's intention to re-examine the Public Order Act 1936 to consider whether any changes would be useful and desirable. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary confirmed that yesterday in his statement to the House on the Southall disturbances. One of the matters that will fall to be considered will be whether there should be a national requirement for advance notice of processions.
However, before turning to the points that have been raised on the new clause, I should like to follow up the exchange in the House yesterday after my right


hon. Friend's statement between the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend said that he would consider whether it would be right for the Government to advise the House that it would be better if the provisions in local Bills currently before us were not to include proposals for an advance notice requirement and that such proposals should await the review of the Public Order Act 1936, which is now under way.
Although the time available since yesterday has been relatively short my right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the position that the Government should take. It is clear that it might be thought preferable to have a clearcut position either with or without a national notice requirement. But that would be true only if we were starting from a position in which what was being proposed locally in the series of Bills coming before the House were wholly new and unprecedented and if there were not strong arguments, on their merits, for particular local provisions.
That is not the situation. We are dealing with proposals to re-enact, with some modifications, useful existing provisions. We are therefore starting not from scratch but from an existing pattern in the law. Bills before the House propose some modifications, but they are designed largely to ensure that the provisions throughout a local authority or police area should be consistent. They fill in gaps that would otherwise exist and build, on the basis of experience, some minor changes into the period for advance notice.
The chief officers of police concerned have found the local provisions useful in the past. The provisions have not caused difficulty to those who wish to march and I consider that they are useful for the future. I should therefore tell the House that it would not, in the Government's view, be right to deny local authorities such provisions simply on the basis that the Government are reviewing the general law of the land in relation to such matters.
If as a result of the review, the House decides that there should be an advance notice requirement in the general law, amending legislation could bring local legislation into line. My right hon.

Friend believes it right that, in the meantime, Parliament should consider and decide the proposed requirements in local Bills on their merits.
In respect of the Bill before the House, the Government are definitely in favour of the proposed notice requirement. The arguments are in part general and in part relate to the particular needs of the West Midlands.
Taking the general view first, I believe that there are three practical arguments for a reasonable notice requirement. First, if a march or procession is expected to be large or to provoke a significant counter demonstration, the police may need to make arrangements for the diversion of traffic. Obviously the more time that they are given for that, the more satisfactory the arrangements are likely to be.
Secondly, if a march is likely to create public order problems and consideration is given to the use of the powers to ban processions which exist under the Public Order Act 1936, the procedures involved take time, and notice is valuable in that respect.
Thirdly, where a march is likely to require a larger number of police officers to control it than a chief constable could have available from his own force he will need to obtain assistance from one or more forces. That again takes time to organise.

Mr. Kaufman: The Minister is making a serious and important statement on behalf of the Government. I should like to ask him two questions. He has said that the Government endorse the proposal for notice in the Bill before us because they believe that it is acceptable for ad hoc arrangements to be made pending the possibility of general legislation by the Government.
Is the hon. and learned Gentleman therefore saying in advance that the Government will endorse every one of the proposals in the Bills coming before the House, or that each Bill will be judged by the Government on what they believe to be the merits and that it is possible that they will come to different decisions on different Bills?
Secondly, is the Minister aware that we had an outrageous National Front march through my constituency for which an enormous number of police were brought


in by the chief constable of Greater Manchester and that no tightening up of the law, in the way envisaged by the Bill before us and by the Greater Manchester Bill was necessary for Chief Constable Anderton to take the precautions that he thought right? The tightening of the law which is being advocated in a number of Bills was not necessary in order to enable Chief Constable Anderton to do what he did in my constituency.

Mr. Brittan: The Government will consider each Bill on its merits. One matter that will be taken into account is whether there were previous comparable provisions affecting the whole or a large part of the area concerned.
As to the example given of the march referred to, I understand that it has never been part of the case of the promoters of this Bill that there will always be trouble in the absence of the provisions of this Bill. All that we say is that the provisions of the Bill make it less likely that there will be trouble because notice will be given and that, therefore, they are a useful adjunct to the powers which already exist.
9 p.m.
It has, in some cases, been put forward on the part of those who oppose these powers that there is a major question involved, but I think it is fair to say that those who favour the powers are not putting the case as high as that. They are merely presenting it as a useful addition to the present position.

Mr. Guy Barnett: As I understood his words the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying, as representing the Government, that he was in favour of the kind of provision that exists in this Bill. He will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) when he was Home Secretary, said on 6 February
I have taken my view about the metropolis for which I am responsible and for the country as a whole, but I do not believe that there is a need for what is proposed here."—[Official Report, 6 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 340.]
As the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend are responsible for the metropolis, can he now say what his view is about the metropolis?

Mr. Brittan: No, I cannot say that because I think that that is something

that ought to be considered in the review generally. What I have said is that we are faced with a local Bill on which the House has to form a view in relation to the locality. I am saying that if one is faced with a situation in which there are strong arguments for it, and in which it is substantially replacing the existing requirement relating to much of the area concerned, one is entitled to say that it is right that the House should form a view on that without in any way prejudging the view that will be formed by the House after the general review of the Public Order Act.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Before he was twice interrupted the hon. and learned Gentleman was advancing a series of general arguments in favour of the proposition that there should be a notice clause in this Bill. Not one of the three arguments that he advanced was in any way peculiar to the West Midlands. How can he then say that he is not prejudging the outcome of the review that he is supposed to be undertaking? How will he be able to stand at that Dispatch Box, in some months' time, and say that he has now decided that the general arguments that he had found so compelling in the case of the West Midlands are invalidated by the strength of the arguments against them which he has now had the opportunity to consider?

Mr. Brittan: One of the reasons why I have not put forward arguments in relation to the West Midlands is that I have been interrupted three times before getting to them. There are strong arguments in favour of this provision. If there were no strong arguments in favour anywhere at all the Government would not be taking the position that they do.
In the general review we shall consider not only those arguments but any disadvantages that there may be. We shall also consider the situation with regard to the country as a whole. I am not in any way prejudging the review, because it is quite conceivable that looking at the country as a whole, different considerations will prevail. Alternatively, the arguments that I say are cogent, but of a general character in relation to the West Midlands, will not be met by countervailing and even stronger arguments.
I do not think that any useful purpose is served in trying to extract some general prejudgment from the arguments that I have put forward. I can assure the House that there is no such thing, and that 1 am speaking on the West Midlands County Council Bill. I welcome the opportunity of making that clear, if there was any illusion on that score.

Mr. Allen McKay: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I ought to come on to the local arguments. It is important to stress, as I have in a sense already anticipated, that the local authority is not seeking, as is sometimes represented, new and unprecedented powers. That is extremely relevant to some of the points that we have just been debating.
In the West Midlands there have been powers requiring 48 hours' notice of processions in the former county boroughs of Dudley, Walsall, Warley, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton since at least 1969. There have been powers requiring 24 hours' notice in Coventry since 1920.
To our knowledge, none of those provisions has caused difficulties for would-be demonstrators of the kind that have been envisaged in the hypothetical situations which have been suggested.

Mr. William Wilson: Will the Minister give way for a moment? He referred to Coventry.

Mr. Brittan: No, I have given way several times and I am anxious not to detain the House over long.
The House should therefore know that in essence what is proposed is to extend to Birmingham and Solihull powers which already exist in much of the West Midlands, and to extend the notice requirement from what is now normally two days to three. That does not strike me as a massive incursion into civil liberties. Moreover, in providing exemptions for charitable and funeral processions and, in another amendment, providing for the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to proceedings, the promoters have introduced safeguards not present in the original local legislation.
The powers are therefore precedented, and, perhaps more important, while their existence in much of the West Midlands has not caused problems for demonstra-

tors, their absence in Birmingham has in recent years caused significant problems for the police and the community.
Let me give the House two examples. During the evening of 15 August 1977, considedable disorder resulted from a demonstration against a by-election meeting held at Boulton Road school, Handsworth. The meeting had been organised on behalf of the National Front candidate for the vacant parliamentary seat of Ladywood. During a demonstration against the meeting, other candidates in the by-election strongly opposed to the National Front candidate urged their supporters to march round the school, and the police had to keep pace with them inside the school grounds in order to prevent the demonstrators scaling the railings. Numerous missiles were thrown and fencing was torn down.
On the second circuit of the school by the demonstrators, the police had to form a cordon to block the progress of the marchers. After the National Front meeting had finished, the demonstrators marched along Soho Road to Thornhill Road, where missiles were hurled at police officers and at the police station.

Mr. Denis Howell: That was indeed a shocking occurrence, but it has nothing to do with the Bill. That meeting was well known several days in advance. The notice would have been given by the very same people creating the disorder, and the disorder would have continued. This Bill would not have stopped that shocking occurrence at all.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman knows more about Birmingham than 1 shall ever know, but I cannot see how he can nevertheless say with quite such confidence that this provision would not have—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me to finish the sentence, I may at least be able to give them an inkling, even if I cannot persuade them. I was saying that I could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could so confidently argue that this provision would not have succeeded in preventing some at least of the disturbances.
Although, no doubt, the police, knowing of the meeting, were in a position to make some kind of preparations, the preparations that one makes for that and for a demonstration are different from


the preparations that one makes for a march. Therefore, although one is necessarily speculating, it is entirely reasonable speculation to say that, had there been a notice provision, the police would have been able to take precautions of the kind that they were simply in no position to take.

Mr. Mikardo: Will the Minister allow me to intervene?

Mr. Brittan: No, I think that I will not, because, whereas the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) knows something about what went on in Birmingham, I have no reason to believe that the hon. Member who now seeks to intervene has any such knowledge.

Mr. John Sever: I apologise for not having been here for the bulk of the debate, but I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept that his reference to the candidates who encouraged their supporters to turn up during the Ladywood by-election campaign to protest against the National Front meeting to which he referred should not be taken as including the Labour candidate or his supporters. In fact, because I was a candidate at that time, I gave a press statement and asked people not to go to the meeting or to the area around the school. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that.

Mr. Brittan: I welcome the opportunity of doing so. I failed to do so only because I did not want to go on at great length. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said and I welcome the opportunity to make that clear.
I turn to another example. On 18 February 1978 there was a major demonstration against a private meeting being held by the Young National Front in Digbeth civic hall, Birmingham.

Mr. Mikardo: Another Birmingham example.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has been in this place long enough to know the rules about sedentary observations.

Mr. Brittan: About 250 National Front supporters attended the meeting. There were about 3,000 counter-demonstrators. There was a sudden march by the counter-demonstrators and a splinter group of extremist elements broke away and tried to force their way, without success, through the police cordon. Stones, bricks, paving stones, bottles and other missiles were hurled at the police and protective shields had to be used. Even so, a number of police officers were injured and one constable suffered a fractured skull. Overall, about 2,500—

Mr. Mikardo: What has this to do with the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It appears that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow is rather hard of hearing.

Mr. Mikardo: I was chatting with my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Brittan: About 2,500 police officers had to be deployed to preserve the peace, 58 of whom were injured. I cannot prove that notice of what was to happen in the way of a march would have prevented what occurred. However, notice would have given the police a chance to make proper preparations for a form of protest quite different in kind from that which they had reason to suspect. I do not put it any higher than that. If there is a chance that the disorder and injury that occurred on the occasion to which I have referred could be prevented in future by an innocuous notice provision, I suggest that that is an opportunity of which the House should avail itself.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman see that the arguments he has just advanced are arguments that would be relevant if we were discussing the proposition to have a national system of notification? What he needs to satisfy the House of, if it is possible—I do not believe it is—is that there is something about those incidents in the Birmingham area which is peculiar to the Birmingham area, and that is what he cannot satisfy the House about. Those incidents could have happened in London. If what he says—the desirability of notice—was desirable in Birmingham, it would also be desirable in London.

Mr. Brittan: It may be desirable in London, but that is not what we are


debating. In the West Midlands area there is a wide degree of notice provisions in existing local legislation. Therefore, we are not embarking on new and unchartered territory. That is fundamental.
The Government have made it clear that different considerations would arise if we were considering embarking on new and uncharted territory for the nation. In those circumstances there it would be necessary to have a full review. However, broadly comparable provisions have existed in the West Midlands area. We are entitled to ask whether they should continue. We are also entitled to ask whether it is reasonable to reach the conclusion that such provisions would be useful in part of the area not so covered. I pray in aid the two examples I have given for that purpose and for no other.
The lesson of the two examples is not that people should not be allowed to demonstrate—

Mr. Mikardo: Thank you very much.

Mr. Brittan: However, there needs to be a balance between the rights of those who wish to demonstrate freely and without restraint and the rights of those who have to live in sensitive areas who fear injury to themselves and damage to their property. It does not matter tuppence whether it is the National Front or the Socialist Workers Party which is marching. Surely we can understand the feeling of the police, the local residents and their elected representatives in areas where there are special problems. They have a right to know in advance whether a march is planned, so that appropriate action may be taken to ensure that the peace is preserved. It is for those reasons that the Government view with favour the new clause that is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight).

Mr. Terry Davis: Is the Minister saying that the police did not know about those two demonstrations in Birmingham?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: The police did not know about the marchers. There is a difference between a demonstration and a march.
I shall deal briefly with two of the amendments proposed in relation to the new clause. The first is the proposal for a waiver of the notice requirement. That is amendment (e). It represents an attempt to overcome the problem of the spontaneous demonstration. Examples were given of perfectly legitimate reasons for wishing to demonstrate in a way for which it would not be possible to give three days' notice or anything of that kind. I view with sympathy the attempt to provide a waiver requirement. It causes problems. I do not think that it is in any way objectionable in principle. There may be occasions when a demonstration is likely to be so limited and peaceful that it can be accommodated without any special policing arrangements and therefore a shorter period of notice should be acceptable. Again, there may be circumstances where it is preferable for a procession to go ahead in spite of the fact that the requisite notice cannot be given, when the alternative is some less organised and possibly violent form of demonstration.
I do not in any way oppose a waiver provision as a matter of principle. I am afraid that there are objections to the form of the amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It is for that reason that I must advise the House to reject them.
The position as I see it is that if one is concerned to prevent disruption and disorder, the police are the people who have the experience and knowledge to know the probable consequences of a particular march. It cannot be right that there should be no provision for the police or the council to be notified that an application is to be made to a magistrate for the waiver of a notice requirement. On what basis, in the absence of such notice, will the magistrate be expected to reach a considered decision? He will have the evidence of the organiser of the demonstration, but there is no requirement for him to have any other advice about the possible inconvenience, disruption or disorder that the march may cause, other than what is told by the organiser.
If there is to be a waiver provision of this kind, it is essential that the police should be given notice of any application


to the magistrates' court before it can reach the statute book in a safe form.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am pleased to see that Government Front Bench Members have some sympathy for the waiver clause. The procedure on the Bill at this stage does not enable us to alter the words. Will the Minister recommend to Government supporters that they recommit the Bill to the Committee so that the question of the waiver clause may be sorted out? If the Minister will not do that, as this Bill is in disagreement with that passed in the House of Lords, and therefore must go back to the House of Lords, at that stage will he seek to incorporate a waiver clause to meet our criticisms and legitimate points, which he accepts?

Mr. Brittan: It is not for me to seek to alter the Bill. All I can do is to express my view at the stage at which I am called to speak. I have sympathy with the proposition for a waiver clause, if it can be properly produced. I do not think that the present one is, and I cannot support it. I do not feel that I can go further than that. I think that I dealt with that point clearly and fairly.
I refer to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Small Heath about the responsibility of anybody involved in the conduct and organisation of a procession. There is confusion about the word "responsibility". There is no question of responsibility in the sense that a person must pay for anything that happens as a result of a breach of the law that will be imposed by the new clause. The person in breach of the law is liable to penalties. One envisages fines. To meet the criticism that an individual might be responsible under the criminal law for a procession which got out of hand or changed beyond his control, the promoters of the Bill put forward amendment No. 11 to meet the point.
This will meet that point and ensure that there is, in effect, a due diligence provision, so that somebody in that position would not meet with the consequences that the right hon. Gentleman feared.
I apologise for speaking at such length and I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. George Cunningham: I thank the Minister for his kind personal remark and also follow him in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan)—who is not with us at the moment—on his maiden speech. It is clear that we shall never be in any doubt as to the hon. Gentleman's opinions. Those will always be crystal clear. We shall look forward to his future participation in debate—all the more if we can see a little more of the hon. Gentleman after he has participated, and not only when he is participating.
One of the most significant things about the debate has been the length of time taken by the Minister, on which I do not criticise him at all. The subject matter deserved that a Government representative should speak at that length. But what it indicates is that this matter is not private legislation. It is not of the nature of private legislation. That is why it should be dealt with by Ministers.
Usually, in the course of considering private legislation, the Front Benches either do not participate at all or participate only very much in passing. But on this occasion it was necessary for the Minister to put his backing behind the clause. The true position is that the Government are putting their weight behind the clause because that is the only way that it can pass. It is not just that the Government have given their arguments in the Minister's speech, supporting the clause, but that they are arranging for Members to be present during the votes later on in order to try to ensure that the matter will pass. That is not a breach of the rules of the House—if it were, the Chair would not be permitting it—but it is an abuse of the rules of the House. We should properly separate the procedures appropriate to private legislation from those appropriate to public legislation.

Mr. Brittan: It might help the hon. Gentleman—I know that he would wish to be fair—if I took the opportunity to make quite clear that the Government have not asked their supporters to vote in a particular direction, other than I have said.

Mr. Cunningham: None of us was born yesterday, and we all know that a nod is as good as a wink. We have been


here long enough to know precisely what is happening tonight, and it bears a closer resemblance to what I have described than to what the Minister has said.

Mr. Kaufman: The Minister has taken it upon himself to make that intervention, I think it only right for me to say that in my company two Conservative Members, quite openly and not seeking to conceal anything in discussing this matter among themselves, said "We have got to be here to vote."

Mr. Cunningham: I said that we were none of us born yesterday. That is the real evidence on these occasions, as against protestations. We all know what is happening here tonight.
There have been occasions when, if I had closed my eyes, I would have thought that I was participating in a discussion in the West Midlands county council. It is necessary to remind some Conservative Members that this is not West Midlands county council. This is the national legislature. We are concerned with making the criminal law of this country—and this is, in effect, part of the criminal law of this country—on a national basis.
There is no question but that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said—everyone on the Labour Benches recognises the enormous nuisance and danger, and damage to property and to persons, which can and do arise from processions and marches. That is not in dispute at all between us. But I would commend to Conservative Members, some of whom have spoken in an extremely critical way, the views expressed by no less a person than Lord Denning—as was mentioned in passing by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—in the course of a hearing in the Court of Appeal in 1976 in what was known as the Hubbard and Pitt case, which happened to arise out of a case in my own constituency.
The point at issue was the right of the public to demonstrate upon the highway. The remarks made by Lord Denning, which have been previously quoted in part when considering this or a similar clause before, bear some repetition. Lord Denning—not a raging Socialist—said:

Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done.
I am not implying that there are Conservative Members, certainly not the Minister, who disagree with this. The point I am making is that this is the context in which we are considering the proposition. It is a very important and fundamental one. The right about which we are talking is as fundamental as Lord Denning said. Let me continue. He said:
It is often the only means"—
the right of demonstration—
by which grievances can be brought to the knowledge of those in authority—at any rate with such impact as to gain a remedy. Our history is full of warnings against suppression of these rights. Most notable was the demonstration at St. Peter's Fields, Manchester, in 1819
and so on. 1 shall not weary the House with the whole quotation, but later Lord Denning says that any tampering with those rights, which he regards as a fundamental part of the common law of England for everyone, is something which should be done with very great care.
What is involved here tonight is not an eradication of those rights. I am not suggesting that at all. But it is a tampering, or tidying up of the tampering that has previously been done in some parts of the country. It is that important. Therefore, it should be done with care.
When the House of Commons is proposing to pass legislation relevant to this, one would think that it would do so by its most rigorous methods of scrutiny. It so happens that, wrongly in my view, this is built into a Private Bill. In fact, the rules of the House relating to private business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, are extremely rigorous. They say that the propositions brought before the House, promoted by outside interests, not only ought to be subject to the normal scrutiny in this place, but, because they affect private interests, ought to be subject to the petitioning procedure.
My hon. Friend made a valid point when he said that if the practice being adopted tonight became habitual, the


normal rights of petitioners against provisions in Private Bills would be entirely nullified. I turn away from this kind of subject matter and think of what we would normally think of as a Private Bill. Let us suppose one has a Bill to entitle British Rail to build a new railway line. Let us suppose that British Rail knows that it is a highly contentious thing and that there will be dozens of petitions from a number of local authorities against it. Therefore, British Rail does not put in into the original Bill, or puts it in and gets it knocked out. The Bill then goes to the Opposed Private Bill Committee, without that clause in, and is not subject to the normal procedures. It subsequently comes back here and the offending clause is then added. In that case, not by a breach of the rules but by an abuse of the rules, one has removed the provisions which the rules on private business provide for the protection of private interests.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has missed one detail out of the script, which is that the clause must be moved by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, but not on behalf of the promoters of the Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: Indeed. Of course, the Minister could say "Ah, that consideration should not apply, because we are talking not about a bit of railway line but about something very general." He cannot have it both ways. If we are talking about something which comes within the criminal law and is very general, it should be in private legislation and it does not belong here. It should be subject to the normal procedures of Committee stage, and so on, before this House.

Mr. Mikardo: If this subterfuge is to be used to alter the whole of our procedures with regard to Private Bills, and to remove any protection from potential petitioners, there is only one protection that the House can have against the continuance of this Bill and that is to ensure that no Private Bills ever go through unopposed. That would give the Leader of the House a problem, finding time for the Chairman of Ways and Means, and would ensure that the sort of three-line Whip that the Government side have tonight would have to be imposed two or three times a week.

Mr. Cunningham: I have no doubt that hon. Members on the Government Benches will take account of that gentle reminder from my hon. Friend. To those Government Members who are in support of the principle in the clause, I say that they can be in support of the principle of the clause but not in support of the manner in which it is being processed through the House.
There was an occasion in the last Parliament, which we remember with great pain, when a Conservative Member made use—I believe perfectly legitimately—of the rules of this House on hybridity to hold up a major part of Government legislation. It is sometimes necessary for hon. Members to say "I approve the substance of this provision, but this is an abuse of parliamentary procedure."
If Members on the Government Back Benches are not prepared to do that, the powers of this House will be inevitably limited over the years. I beg them to consider that it is perfectly possible for them to say tonight "We support this provision. We want it to go ahead. But do not let us erode the rights of petitioners by failing to put it to the Opposed Private Bill Committee, which is the normal way of dealing with such matters." Government Back Benchers could therefore, vote for the clause and for the committal motion.
On the substance of the matter, I repeat that this subject matter is not appropriate to private legislation. In all the examples that he gave, the Minister was not able to give any reasons why it is necessary to have notice in Birmingham but not to have notice in London, to have notice of a certain length in Birmingham but not in Glasgow, and so on. There is no need or justification for that.
If there was not a prospect of the Government's embarking on a general review of this sector of policy, one might say "Let us leave the law as it stands, with some tidying up in the meanwhile, and in the coming by and by in a few years' time we shall get round to reviewing the whole procedure." But that is not so. The Government have already said that they will embark upon a review of this subject matter, and, therefore, surely it is not the right moment to allow a provision of this kind to go through.
It would be possible for the promoters of the Bill—not the Minister—to say that


they would have no objection to the clause going to an Opposed Private Bill Committee. The promoters of the Bill could take that on themselves. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), whom I do not see in the Chamber at present, can say that on behalf of the promoters. If she cannot, I ask Government Back Benchers—perhaps I may be entitled to make this request to them—not necessarily to follow whatever indications have been given to them. They should stand up for the change which they want to make in the law, and should also stand up for doing it by the proper and rigorous procedures of this House and not by an abuse of those procedures.

Mr. Budgen: Not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was saying. He is a libertarian. He is arguing for the right to demonstrate and to process. He believes, in a way that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) does not believe, that the right to process and demonstrate can be exercised in a way that is almost unconstrained and is perhaps almost without a background of order, without which the liberties which we all treasure are valueless.
It seemed to me, however, that the discussion processed a little further than that. All of us on the Conservative Benches wish to preserve those liberties. When I think of some of the disorders and problems that have arisen in my constituency in the northern part of the area of the West Midlands county council, I am glad that we have in this country the right to process and to demonstrate. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr has said, it is an essential way of allowing the lid of the kettle to come off, and in the long term it saves a great deal of trouble for the police and those in authority who have the duty to keep the general order of our country.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Small Heath has left the Chamber. I have some affection for him. I opposed him at the 1970 general election. He rightly raised the serious issue as to whether this is the sort of legislation that should be put forward by Private Bill.

Mr. Silverman: It is not only the question of legislation by Private Bill, but, in this particular way, of even avoiding the processes and safeguards of a Private Bill.

Mr. Budgen: Perhaps I may deal primarily with the first point—should it be done by a Private Bill?—and not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, get embroiled in the procedural issue.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) raised the whole issue of whether the liberties of the subject were being, as he put it, either eradicated or tampered with. Quite plainly, if the House were of the view that the fundamental liberties of the subject in the West Midlands were being eradicated, it would be no matter for a Private Bill. If, for the sake of argument, the promoters had said that the period of notice was to be, say, 14 days—which by a roundabout route would have eradicated the fundamental liberty of the subject in processing and demonstrating—the House should have rightly said "This is a liberty of the subject which is being taken away from the people of the West Midlands. That is not a matter for the private discretion of the West Midlands county council. Let it be chucked out."
However, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury does not say that. He says "By this Bill, the liberty is not being eradicated, but it is tampered with." I put it slightly differently. I say that the liberty is preserved but, for proper West Midlands reasons, it is being arranged that that liberty should be exercised under certain proper conditions. Surely that is not an unreasonable proposition.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister gave chapter and verse of some of the problems that have befallen the West Midlands in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), in his most forceful maiden speech, gave details of the incident at Saltley. I suggest that the West Midlands county council is entitled to say "These are special circumstances which pertain in the West Midlands. We do not wish to deny citizens of this country living in the West Midlands the right to process and to demonstrate, but we say that there are special circumstances in


the West Midlands which make it necessary to prescribe conditions under which that fundamental right is being preserved."
I hope that the House will take the view that, for instance, the period of three days' notice is reasonable. It enables the police if necessary to call on outside police forces, divert the traffic and make provision for preserving the life and health of those who are processing. For the sake of argument, if an extreme Left-wing organisation wishes to process, as it is perfectly entitled to do, it may be necessary to preserve it from the attacks of the National Front, or vice-versa. That is all made possible by laying down conditions under which these liberties are properly to be exercised.
The House must carefully consider the arguments put forward by the Opposition, and particularly by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and the right hon. Member for Small Heath, but it should take the view that these provisions have been well and carefully thought out. With respect, they have been better thought out than some of the objections of the right hon. Member for Small Heath. His argument about a football crowd was not a good one.
These provisions do not provide for criminal sanctions against the whole football crowd, shall we say, coming off the train at New Street or Wolverhampton. They provide only for criminal sanctions against the person who organises or conducts the procession. No criminal liability would arise in the example that the right hon. Gentleman gave to show that the Bill was ill-thought out.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister demolished the right hon. Gentleman's argument about general responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman was almost saying that in the event of damage the persons who had organised or conducted the procession would be responsible and under a legal obligation to compensate those who had suffered damage. The Bill contains no such provision.
The House should consider the Bill with care because we are dealing with a most important liberty of the subject. That liberty is essential in righting grievances and expressing political views. We are the products of the political process

and should be extremely wary of infringing political rights of others.
I believe that the special circumstances of the West Midlands entitle that county council to ask not for eradication but merely for a method of laying down those conditions of good order for notice and prearrangement to allow these essential liberties to be exercised in a way that preserves the health, sometimes the life and sometimes the property of the citizens of the West Midlands. It is not an improper Bill for the West Midlands county council to present. It is a proper and necessary measure for good order in a part of the kingdom.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Beith: It was on a motion that I moved and which received strong support from these Benches that this clause was struck out of the West Midlands Bill initially. Tonight's debate has brought new dimensions to the argument. It goes beyond the question of the liberty of the subject, to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen referred. The arguments were brought out particularly by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, Birmingham (Mr. Rooker) in his forceful moving of the recommital motion.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has posed a threat tonight to the whole private business procedure. She threatens those who, in future, would bring forward Private Bills and those who would petition against them. The natural response of many hon. Members to that is that if this happens there is no point in letting Private Bills go through on the nod.
There is an even more important danger than that. This Bill is before us tonight because of the carry-over motion for Private Bills. At the end of the previous Parliament the House passed a motion that Private Bills should come back in this Parliament at the stage they had previously reached and be resumed. Public business is never given that right in the House of Commons. The constraint of the length of a Parliament is a protection of individual rights against the power of the Executive. That protection is that the Government must get their business through within the limits of the Parliament, and when that Parliament comes to an end there are no further


opportunities and everything must start again from scratch.
Hon. Members have traditionally allowed the carry-over motion to go forward, never thinking that it would be used as a means to remove the rights of petitioners to deal with the individual grievances they may have against parts of Private Bills. Listening to the debate tonight, my reaction is that we should never again allow a carry-over motion to go through the House. We must never contemplate a situation in which such a motion is used as a means of stopping petitioners from going to the appropriate Committee to raise grievances against the contents of Bills. That would be a disservice to the promoters of Bills, because recently they have looked to the House to minimise the expense, inconvenience and difficulty which they face in the arduous process of getting legislation through the House.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston has been rather cautious in the way in which she has referred to the clause, lest she should appear to infringe Standing Orders designed to prevent this from happening. She has had to distinguish between putting the clause forward in her own name and acting on behalf of the promoters of the Bill.
The second thing about these proceedings that has been rather surprising is the attitude of the Government. We have had a statement from the Minister that has cast a new light upon the concept of review of policy. In all my past experience, reviews of policy by Government are usually devices by which nobody is supposed to do anything for some time. I am sure that the Minister can remember many occasions on which hon. Members attempting to get something done have been told that nothing must be done because the Government were reviewing the policy and anything done in the meantime would prejudice that review.
Tonight we have had a statement from the Government on general principles which makes the outcome of the review absolutely certain. The principles that have been advanced by the Government are not peculiar to the West Midlands. They have advanced a series of arguments in favour of proposals of notice of this kind and no arguments against them.

That shows a clear indication that they accept the arguments in favour. When the Government come to their review perhaps they will devise some reason why some parts of the country might be exempted from the provisions from which they seem to be in favour. I have never heard a general policy review so clearly prejudged as it was in the Front Bench statement tonight, because the arguments given were of a general character. When I listened to the Home Secretary yesterday it seemed clear that he intended to engage in a wide-ranging review. Now it seems that we must place a very different interpretation upon the exchanges that took place then.
The arguments in favour of the Bill have all rested upon the belief that provisions for notice will in some way relieve the public of the apprehension that they rightly have that some demonstrations and some processions may lead to a threat to their liberties. Of course there must be restrictions upon the liberties of those who want to protest, in order to ensure the liberties of people who go about their business peacefully. At no stage of these proceedings has anyone managed to convince me that the clause that the hon. Lady seeks to introduce will do anything of the kind.

Mr. Budgen: The Minister dealt with three points—namely, the traffic consideration, the risk to other people in the streets and the need to get police from other areas. All those points support such notice.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman merely strengthens my case. Each one of the matters that he puts forward points to a general argument. That general argument argues for a change of law throughout the country. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was missing from the Chamber a few moments ago when his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) said that in his constituency farmers must retain the liberty to take their tractors on the streets.

Mr. Budgen: The argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) was advancing was the total libertarian argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). My hon. Friend was saying that in an ideal world he would


like that liberty to be exercisable immediately and with complete spontaneity.

Mr. Beith: He did not say that.

Mr. Budgen: Those of us who are more realistic are of the view that, while that liberty ideally should be exercised immediately in order to preserve other liberties, certain limitations have to be put upon it.

Mr. Beith: I have often seen among the commentaries of the Jehovah's Witnesses remote interpretations of the scripture. I have rarely heard an interpretation as remote as that just given by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in interpreting the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. If the interpretation were true, I would expect to find the latter hon. Gentleman in the Lobby with me later, but he said something very different. He said that, notwithstanding the provisions of the law as it now is, or as it might be under the present provisions, the farmers in his constituency would exercise their right to take their tractors into the streets. In doing so, the hon. Gentleman furthered my argument that people who intend to take the law into their own hands, or indeed to ignore it, will not give notice of processions—or perhaps they will give such notice, but they will not give notice of the abuses which they intend will follow when they engage in those processions.
To tell people who already do so that they must give a specific period of notice will not make much difference to thugs, bullies and political extremists who are prepared to disregard anything that we put on our statute book. These provisions will not prevent dangerous and ill-meaning people from behaving extremely badly on the streets of our cities.

Mr. Budgen: We know that when thugs, bullies and extremists demonstrate those characteristics, they are likely to be guilty of other criminal offences. We are dealing with people who do not fall into that category but who, none the less, organise or conduct processions and demonstrations. They have to be subject to these provisions which we believe will enable that liberty to be exercised in a more orderly way.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman is arguing himself into a most fascinating position, but he is going a long way from his hon. Friend's argument. Some people who organise processions are troublemakers, and that is part of the burden of my argument, but the idea that the notice requirement should be placed on reasonable people is an absurdity.
It has been pointed out that 80 per cent. of those who organise demonstrations are happy to give notice to the police of their intention to do so, and already do. Indeed, it is to their convenience that they should do so. But there is a certain kind of procession that will be unreasonably limited by the obligation to take that step. Various examples have been quoted in the course of these debates. For example, we have heard of the spontaneous reaction against a decision that leads a group of people to walk through the streets to the place where that decision was made. We all know of the spontaneous response of people to bad news and to good news. What happens when an heir to the throne is born? That is an occasion for genuine celebration and people want to go into the streets to express their feelings. Why should they be denied the opportunity to celebrate in that way because they have not given three days' notice. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to dig another pit for himself?

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman argues for the exercise of total liberty in an ideal world, but when our liberties impinge on the liberties of others, we may have to constrain them in some way. This is the classic argument between liberty and order.

Mr. Beith: I am well aware of the need to constrain in some instances, but the hon. Gentleman is putting the argument on a general footing—a footing from which some of his hon. Friends have been trying to escape. That is part of my case. What we should now be considering is a piece of general legislation, not something that is peculiar to the West Midlands. The philosophical argument which the hon. Gentleman has just advanced is in no way peculiar to the West Midlands.
John Stuart Mill's arguments do not end at the West Midlands county boundary. I am happy to say that they extend a good deal further than that.
The hon. Member is failing to recognise that when we restrict liberty in order to protect wider liberties we do so with great caution and with some reasonable hope that we shall increase the total protection as a result. I have no such hope about these proposals, because those who are both willing and able, through the nature of the procession they are organising, to give notice will do so. Those who are not able to do so because their procession is genuinely spontaneous and well meaning, should not be expected to do so. Those who are unwilling to do so because their intentions are improper and because they wish to bring about a disturbance of the peace will not give notice even if they are required to do so.
We have to bear in mind that there are many large demonstrations about which it is unnecesary for the police to be given notice because everyone knows about them. If someone is planning to organise a demonstration or procession involving 2,000 or 5,000 people, no one can kid me that that is something about which the police in the West Midlands will not become quickly aware. The very act of calling such a procession clearly requires information to get around quickly. Most people who arganised such a demonstration would tell the police that they intended to do so. I am not sure that they would tell the district council, but they would certainly tell the police.
If there is a case for some restriction of the right to procession along these lines—and I am doubtful about that because I do not think that it can be shown that it would prevent the sort of disorders described by the Minister—we must surely look at a whole range of examples from all over the country and decide whether, for example, all urban areas need something of this kind or, whether at the very least, areas with heavy concentrations of population require it. We should consider why, if it is required, we should distinguish between urban centres of the West Midlands—towns like Warwick and Leamington—as one hon. Member tried so clearly to do. We have to consider whether there is a case at all.

I cannot see that it is right for us to import such a principle into our legislation by a series of quite different measures in county council Bills.
The House has been confronted with a great many local authority Bills at one go because an attempt is being made to get some degree of conformity between them. They are not consolidation measures in the strict sense, but they are part of an attempt to achieve some harmony between the private legislation of the major local authorities. But several of these Bills will not contain any such provision, and if the provision is written into some of the other Bills radical differences will remain.
This does not seem to be a sensible basis upon which to make a law on so fundamental a subject. It does not seem to me to be a sensible way of embarking upon a review of the whole subject such as the Home Secretary described from the Dispatch Box yesterday. Hon. Members should bear both those considerations in mind, as well as remembering that if they put this provision back into the Bill tonight they will be depriving those affected of their time-honoured rights to petition to the Committee for their rights to be protected.

Mr. Silverman: I can have no objection to a Tory Government, recently elected, putting Tory policies into operation. I may not like those policies, but I cannot object to them. I have no objection to a Tory majority endeavouring to change even the course of a Private Bill. But I object to what I can only describe as the shabby method by which an attempt is being made to deprive the petitioners of rights they would normally have under a Bill such as this.
To say the least, this procedure is most doubtful. Mr. Speaker has ruled that it is in order, and of course I accept that. But it is unnecessary because, even if the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) were accepted, there would still be an automatic Tory majority upon the eventual Private Bill Committee, at any rate by the casting vote of the Chairman, and the legislation would get through.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made and Question put,
That the West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's

sitting, though opposed, until a quarter of an hour before Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Waddington.]

The House divided: Ayes 101. Noes 78.

Division No. 31]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Alexander, Richard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Arnold, Tom
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Murphy, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Myles, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Needham, Richard


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Normanton, Tom


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fry, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Best, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Blackburn, John
Goodlad, Alastair
Proctor, K. Harvey


Blaker, Peter
Gow, Ian
Renton, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Rhodes James, Robert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gray, Hamish
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawksley, Warren
Shersby, Michael


Bright, Graham
Hooson, Tom
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Brittan, Leon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Knight, Mrs Jill
Stradling Thomas, J.


Budgen, Nick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Lawrence Ivan
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Butcher, John
Le Merchant, Spencer
Thompson, Donald


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lyell, Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Channon, Paul
McCrindle, Robert
Waldegrave, Hon William


Chapman, Sydney
McCusker, H.
Ward, John


Clark, William (Croydon South)
MacGregor, John
Watson, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mackay, John (Argyll)
Wheeler, John


Clegg, Walter
Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Colvin, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


Cope, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)



Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Emery, Peter
Molyneaux, James
Mr. David Waddington and


Eyre, Reginald
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Carol Mather.




NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Freud, Clement
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rooker, J. W.


Beith, A. J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Sever, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hooley, Frank
Short, Mrs Renée


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Huckfield, Les
Silverman, Julius


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Snape, Peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soley, Clive


Carmichael, Neil
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Cartwright, John
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Cowans, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted
Stoddart, David


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Winnick, David


Dixon, Donald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Miss Sheila


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian



Eastham, Ken
Morton, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Penhaligon, David
Miss Jo Richardson and


Evans, John (Newton)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Reg Race.


Flannery, Martin




Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mrs. Knight: rose in her place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House having proceeded to a Division, and Mr. James Pawsey and Mr. Ivan Lawrence having been appointed Tellers for the Ayes and Miss Jo Richardson and Mr. David Stoddart Tellers for the Noes:—

Mr. David Stoddart: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have just left the Aye Lobby because there was a certain disorder as a result of an hon. Member forcing his way past the Tellers into the Lobby through the exit door. I immediately asked that the voting be stopped, and most hon. Members were prepared to accept that. However, other hon. Members forced their way through the door in spite of the fact that I declared that,

in my view, the Division was not being conducted in a proper manner. I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who has been here a long time, knows that if there is a complaint about a Division it must come formally from the Tellers.
It has been intimated to me that the Tellers wish to make a report. There is no purpose in continuing with the present Division, since I must have a report from the Tellers. Two of the Tellers are here. If the other Tellers will come to the Table so that all are present, I shall hear the complaint.

The Tellers having come to the Table—

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I have to report. Mr. Speaker, a disagreement among the Tellers.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the disagreement among the Tellers, I shall call the Division again.

Whereupon MR. SPEAKER directed the House to proceed again to a Division:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 77.

Division No.32]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Alexander, Richard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Arnold, Tom
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Murphy, Christopher


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Myles, David


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Needham, Richard


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodlad, Alastair
Patten, John (Oxford)


Blackburn, John
Gow, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Renton, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hawksley, Warren
Shersby, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Tom
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Bright, Graham
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Speller, Tony


Brittan, Leon
Kershaw, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Stradling Thomas, J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Bulmer, Esmond
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Donald


Butcher, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lyell, Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McCrindle, Robert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
McCusker, H.
Waddington, David


Channon, Paul
MacGregor, John
Wakeham, John


Chapman, Sydney
Mackay, John (Argyll)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Clark, William (Croydon South)
Mates, Michael
Ward, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Mather, Carol
Watson, John


Clegg, Walter
Mayhew, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Colvin, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Cope, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Wolfson, Mark


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)



Emery, Peter
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Eyre, Reginald

Mr. Ivan Lawrence and Mr. J. F. Pawsey




NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek
Richardson, Miss Jo


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Freud, Clement
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Beith, A. J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rooker, J. W.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hooley, Frank
Sever, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Short, Mrs Renée


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silverman, Julius


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skinner, Dennis


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Snape, Peter


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Cowans, Harry
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


Deakins, Eric
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Dixon, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan
Winnick, David


Dubs, Alfred
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Miss Sheila


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian



Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Morton, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Evans, John (Newton)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Reg Race and Mr. David


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mrs. Knight: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am informed that there is undue delay in the clearing of the Aye Lobby.

Mr. Speaker: In view of that, I should like inquiries to be made. If Members are just hanging around in the Lobby, the Teller should bring the result of the Division. Would the Serjeant at Arms be kind enough to inquire?

The House having divided: Ayes 78, Noes 103.

Division No. 33]
AYES
[10.33 p.m.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Freud, Clement
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rooker, J. W.


Beith, A. J.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bidwell, Sydney
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Sever, John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hooley, Frank
Short, Mrs Renée


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Huckfield, Les
Silverman, Julius


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Snape, Peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Soley, Clive


Carmichael, Neil
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spearing, Nigel


Cartwright, John
Lomond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Cowans, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted
Stoddart, David


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thin, James


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Winnick, David


Dixon, Donald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Miss Sheila


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian



Eastham, Ken
Morton, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Penhaligon, David
Miss Jo Richardson and


Evans, John (Newton)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Reg Race.


Flannery, Martin






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Best, Keith
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom
Bevan, David Gilroy
Brittan, Leon


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, John
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Blaker, Peter
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Budgen, Nick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Bulmer, Esmond


Berry, Hon Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard
Butcher, John




Cadbury, Jocelyn
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shersby, Michael


Channon, Paul
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Chapman, Sydney
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speller, Tony


Clark, William (Croydon South)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Lyell, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Colvin, Michael
McCusker, H.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Cope, John
MacGregor, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Cormack, Patrick
Mackay, John (Argyll)
Thompson, Donald


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Mates, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mather, Carol
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Emery, Peter
Mayhew, Patrick
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Wakeham, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Waller, Gary


Fookes, Miss Janet
Molyneaux, James
Ward, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Watson, John


Fry, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wheeler, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Murphy, Christopher
Winterton, Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Myles, David
Wolfson, Mark


Goodlad, Alastair
Needham, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Gow, Ian
Normanton, Tom



Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Hamish
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. J. F. Pawsey and


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, John (Oxford)
Mr. Ivan Lawrence.


Hooson, Tom
Proctor, K. Harvey

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after a quarter to Eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the debate pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

Mrs. Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that, had the vote proceeded in a proper and orderly manner, there would have been sufficient time for another vote to have taken place.

Mr. Speaker: The Division took an unusually long time. Hon. Members will draw their own conclusions. I asked the Serjeant at Arms to ask the Tellers to return, and it took a rather long time.

PETITION

Vietnamese Refugees

Mr. Allen McKay: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition from the Rev. Anthony Attwood, vicar of Holy Trinity church, Elsecar, in the diocese of Sheffield, which is in my constituency, his wife Denise Attwood, his parishioners and many others, who seek leave, in accordance with the practices and principles of our proceedings and precedents, in connection with the deep distress they feel to hear of the plan of the Malaysian Government to abandon

large numbers of Vietnamese refugees and leave them to perish at sea.

The petition is not a long one. It says:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of the parishioners of Holy Trinity, Elsecar, sheweth:

1. That the Government of Malaysia is planning to abandon large numbers of Vietnamese refugees at sea, thereby leaving them to die.
2. This plan has terrifying precedents of recent and earlier times.
3. The only justification is Malaysia's inability to cope with the problem, and all Governments should be urged to offer Malaysia help on this.

Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will

1. Urge the Prime Minister to initiate an international conference on the relief of the plight of these refugees as soon as possible.
2. Urge the abandonment of Malaysia's policy at least until after such a conference has been given the opportunity to co-ordinate an international response to the problems, thus avoiding the unspeakable crime against humanity being proposed by the Malaysian Government.
3. Legislate to introduce sanctions against Malaysia if this plan is not abandoned, and to do all in your power to encourage other Governments of the world to do likewise.

Wherefore your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

INDO-CHINESE REFUGEES

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the Indo-Chinese refugees and the nature and extent of the Government's responsibilities towards them. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who knows Indo-China and the Far East from firsthand experience as well as anyone in the House, for coming here tonight to answer the debate.
The last few months have seen a substantial and tragic increase in the number of the world's refugees, formally estimated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at between 4 million and 5 million. A decision has apparently been taken by the Government of Vietnam to remove from the normal life of that country the entire Chinese ethnic minority, together with those Vietnamese members of the community whose previous mode of life does not accord with prevailing revolutionary theory.
The Vietnamese refugees have been faced with the threat of banishment to so-called new economic zones, having their property confiscated, or the option of paying a sum of money to the public service bureau or to middle-men for safe passage out of Vietnamese waters into the international sea lanes. It is a grim commentary on the attractions of the first two options that so many refugees choose the last. It is not possible to estimate how many of the boat people have drowned, but it seems likely that nearly half the number of those who have put to sea may have done so. There is a very fine distinction between the present policy of the Vietnamese Government and genocide.
The number of survivors involved is substantial, and is rising daily. From 1975 to the beginning of this month, about 570,000 Indo-Chinese refugees had been accepted for permanent resettlement, of whom the great majority are from Vietnam. Many of them are still in countries of temporary asylum awaiting

transit to their ultimate country of resettlement.
The countries that have accepted them are China, which has taken 230,000, the United States 224,000, France 49,000—although I saw that yesterday the Cabinet agreed to accept another 5,000—Australia 21,000, Canada 15,000, Hong Kong 12,000, Germany 3,600, the United Kingdom 3,300, Switzerland 1,600. Malaysia 1,600, Belgium 1,300, and a number of other countries which have accepted fewer than 1,000. Of the States with large geographical areas, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Finland and the Latin American countries are notable by their absence from the list.
In addition to the 560,000 Indo-Chinese refugees who have been accepted for resettlement, there were at the beginning of this month an estimated 286,000 awaiting resettlement. That figure is now well over 300,000, and the extent by which it could rise is inestimable. It could rise to 1 million. Of these people, at the beginning of the month 155,000 were in Thailand, 68,000 in Malaysia, 36,000 in Hong Kong—indeed the figure this morning was 59,000—21,000 in Indonesia, 2,700 in Macao, 2,500 in the Philippines, and 500 in Singapore. Again, the vast majority are from Vietnam, 60,000 being Laotians, and 40,000 Kampucheans or Khmers. It is estimated that over 50,000 of the latter have been returned from Thailand to Kampuchea. These figures do not include the large number of Vietnamese and Khmer displaced persons—estimates of whom range up to 1 million—who are within Indo-China. Although they do not fall within the definition of refugees, they would do so if they were to leave their countries.
The pace of resettlement is now very slow, and the number needing resettlement is rising fast. The ASEAN countries, with the exception of Indonesia, are not accepting any more refugees. Thailand sends them back into Kampuchea, and Malaysia sends them out to sea. The United Nations High Commissioner has, I understand, just over 125,000 offers of settlement places a year on his books—enough to clear a mere three-months' worth of new arrivals at the present rate, without touching the backlog who are in the refugee camps. That is the scale of the problem.
The Governments of the countries round the South China Sea, especially those who have already experienced difficulties over the racial balance of their populations and the assimilation of Chinese ethnic minorities, are becoming desperate in the face of the enormous number of Indo-Chinese refugees, mostly destitute, arriving on their doorsteps. It is vital that they should be reassured and that a credible resettlement programme should be mounted in the very near future.
I am sure that the whole House was deeply impressed by the rapidity with which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the initiative at the end of May in appealing to the United Nations to arrange an international meeting to agree practical measures by the international community. Similarly, the statement by the EEC Council of Ministers on 18 June and the ensuing representations to the Vietnamese and ASEAN Governments have been helpful steps in the right direction.
However, of the 85 signatories to the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 protocol on the treatment of refugees, only two are Asian, and both West Asian countries. The behaviour of the States located round the South China Sea is therefore not governed by the Convention. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who, among other tasks, pays for refugee camps and underwrites the cost of transportation from the country of first asylum to the country of resettlement, has been operating in conditions of great difficulty, particularly in the sensitive matter of the protection of refugees, as has the Save the Children Fund, which not only raises substantial sums of money but provides medical and nutritional care for Indo-Chinese refugee children in camps. I am sure that the House wishes to pay tribute to its work.
In Hong Kong the flow of immigrants from Vietnam has coincided with one of the periodic build-ups in the flow of immigrants from China which historically have coincided, as after the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, with periods of liberalisation. So far this year Hong Kong has admitted over 100,000 refugees, about half of them from Indo-China, and is projecting for the year a figure in excess of 200,000

The recent reinforcements provided by this country have helped to stem the flow of illegal immigrants from China into Hong Kong. It is hoped that the Government of the People's Republic will respond to appeals to help stem the illegal exodus from Kwantung.
No praise is too high for the response of the Hong Kong Government and the people of Hong Kong to the enormous new burdens that have been placed upon them. A few weeks ago there was no accommodation for refugees. Now nearly 60,000 are being looked after, albeit in basic conditions. The authorities are conducting a race against time prior to the breaking of the typhoon season to provide accommodation for the anticipated numbers.
The very creditable record of the United Kingdom, which I believe provides 8 per cent. of the cost of the total United Nations refugee programme, is put into a stark context when one considers that Hong Kong has already spent twice that amount in the first five months of this year.
Pressure on the colony, which is one of the most densely populated places on earth, is now intense, and its alleviation is a matter of the greatest urgency. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the Indo-Chinese refugees are not a specifically British problem; they are a world problem. The Governments of the world face two important and sensitive tasks which represent an immense test of their political will and political courage.
The first task is to reassure their own people that an admission, or a greater admission, of Indo-Chinese refugees will not compound the problems already experienced in areas with high concentrations of foreign immigrants and ethnic minorities. There are few countries where additional immigration is an automatic vote winner. The second task, however distasteful it may be to appear to submit to political blackmail by the barbarous cynicism of the Vietnamese Government, is to make a firm commitment at an early date to accept a specific number of refugees for permanent resettlement.
The practical problems are immense, but if a large number of countries cooperate the number of refugees needed


to be accommodated by each participating State need not be unmanageably large. If only a few countries co-operate the problem will be insoluble. Many people will die in misery and degradation, and there will be a permanent state of very dangerous instability in South East Asia.
I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell the House, in the light of his visit to Geneva and subsequent meetings, what progress has been made in securing international agreement to the provision of money and, more important, facilities for the resettlement of refugees ahead of the forthcoming conference. What reaction has there been to Dr. Waldheim's appeal, through the United Nations High Commissioner, for countries to commit themselves to receiving a quota of refugees?
I hope that the maximum possible pressure is being and will continue to be put on the Government of Vietnam in the political forum. They are a Government with few benefactors and few friends, one being the Soviet Union, of which I have the same opinion as I have of Vietnam.
Does my hon. Friend accept the necessity of separating that political forum from the forum in which the practical steps of sharing the effort to aid the refugees throughout the international community are discussed?
Does my hon. Friend accept that the task of spreading the responsibility of resettlement cannot be successfully carried out in the same forum as the purely political processes which derive from the situation in Indo-China? Does he regard such a separation as a practical possibility?
If the forthcoming conference is unsuccessful—Heaven forbid that it should be—the position not only of the refugees but of Hong Kong, given the attitude of the ASEAN countries and, thereby, this country, will be intolerable. There is a minimum that must emerge from the conference—the access of food and drugs via the Red Cross to Kampuchea, the persuasion of the authorities in Vietnam not to continue to facilitate departures on the basis that they are so doing, the provision of adequate new resettlement opportunities for boat and land refugees presently in South-East Asia, financial and technical assistance for the United Nations High Commissioner for Govern-

ments both in South-East Asia and elsewhere who will accept more Indo-Chinese refugees for settlement if so assisted, and assistance for admission directly from Vietnam of the relatives of Indo-Chinese who have already been settled.
The Conservative manifesto specifically mentioned the admission of immigrants on compassionate grounds. The clear distinction between immigrants and other refugees has been forced into the forefront of our minds in the past few weeks. Although no precise figures are provided, because of the practice of admitting refugees on other grounds if possible, I understand that of the 69,313 immigrants admitted for permanent settlement in 1977 an estimated 1,300—1·9 per cent.—were refugees. Whatever the trend in the total level of immigration, surely that percentage must rise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) pointed out in his maiden speech, if we are to carry conviction in pressing other nations to accept more refugees in this new situation, we shall have to do more ourselves.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, whose service in this field is widely known, said:
the United Kingdom's long and honourable tradition of granting asylum to refugees who have arrived here has always been maintained fully. The United Kingdom stands high in the league of refugee-receiving States"—.[Official Report, 25 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 1380.]
According to the estimate of the High Commissioner in 1977 there were about 155,000 refugees, of whom 1,300 arrived here. We have played a part in every international refugee exercise in recent years and we have a notable record for the way in which we have treated refugees in our community.
I am confident that the speed, determination and humanity that my right hon. and hon. Friends have brought to bear on the crisis will bear positive fruit. I hope that some reassurance can be given to the House that the Prime Minister's initiative is meeting the response that it deserves and that some progress towards alleviating the political and economic problems can be made—together with the alleviation of the desperate personal suffering that has arisen from the grotesque cruelty of the present Government in Vietnam. My hon. Friend has the good wishes of the House in his difficult and urgent task.

11.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) for drawing attention to the plight of the refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, who, in their desire to escape from oppressive regimes or, in the case of Cambodia, from the horrors of civil war, now find themselves at best in a kind of limbo, unsure of what their future will be, or, at worst, uncertain whether they will manage to survive.
A continuing stream of people have sought to escape by sea from Vietnam ever since the Communists seized power by force in the South in 1975. They have come from all walks of life. Many thousands have found permanent homes abroad, as my hon. Friend pointed out and I commend the efforts of those countries who have accepted refugees for resettlement. I welcome in particular the announcement from the American Administration today that they are prepared to double the number of refugees accepted by the United States. Most of these are not refugees, but among them are many who have been expelled from East Africa, just as the unfortunate boat people have been expelled from their own country in such appalling circumstances.
Nevertheless, we have agreed under the previous Government to take a special quota of about 1,500 Indo-Chinese and more recently we have agreed to take the refugees from the British ships "Sibonga" and "Roachbank", and those from the "Norse Viking" who wish to come here.
We contributed about £3·5 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee's programme of assistance to the Indo-Chinese refugees up to the end of 1978. For 1979, we have pledged £3·5 million towards the High Commissioner's general programme, which includes work on behalf of the South-East Asian refugees. These figures represent over 8 per cent. of his budget.
In recent months, the stream of refugees has become a flood. It is a remarkable fact that the authorities in Hanoi should have decided to make conditions in Vietnam so intolerable that, rather than stay, the ethnic Chinese, and, indeed, many

Vietnamese, should have been willing to take a less than 50 per cent. chance of survival, and leave in overcrowded and often unseaworthy boats after having been mulcted of gold and their possessions, often by the Government of Vietnam themselves. This is a sad commentary on the new order in Vietnam, born of such suffering and with such a fanfare by the regime's propagandists at the time.
The result is that the coasts of countries neighbouring Vietnam are being inundated by a tide of refugees. We are particularly involved because we have responsibility for Hong Kong. But Malaysia a fellow member of the Commonwealth, as well as Thailand and Indonesia, our good friends in ASEAN. have all been seriously affected.
The situation is further complicated in Hong Kong in this case by an influx of Chinese from across the border, and in the case of Thailand by inroads of Laotian and Cambodian refugees on a massive scale. According to the latest figures, over 350,000 refugees are awaiting resettlement in South-East Asia and Hong Kong. As many as 3,000 people per day may be leaving Vietnam with the connivance of the Government, but over 1 million ethnic Chinese remain in that country. The dimensions of the problem are therefore enormous.
Throughout South-East Asia, the peoples of the countries of first refuge are reacting with increasing concern to the numbers of refugees who continue to flood to their countries. Quite apart from the burden of feeding these people, housing them in makeshift camps, and providing medical supplies, there is an understandable fear, as my hon. Friend rightly said, that if the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does not succeed in obtaining resettlement places for the refugees elsewhere, the ethnic balance in their countries will be permanently impaired.
In Hong Kong, about 58,000 refugees are now being looked after, and over 11,000 have been accepted for settlement More are coming in each day. When it is recalled how overcrowded Hong Kong already is, it is easy to realise the burden that this imposes on the local welfare services, and I, like my hon. Friend, pay tribute to the Government and the people of Hong Kong for what they are doing


Nothing less than an international effort on the widest scale will be sufficient to deal with the problem. It was to arouse the conscience of the civilised world and to involve as many countries as possible in the search for ways to assist the refugees that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made her proposal to the United Nations Secretary-General that he should convene a special conference to deal with it under United Nations auspices.
Dr. Waldheim's initial reaction was favourable. We have approached over 50 countries represented in London to ask for their support. There has been an encouraging response from most of them. Hon. Members will be aware also that the Pope, the President of France and the Foreign Ministers of the EEC have recently supported the call for a conference. We are hopeful that Dr. Waldheim will soon decide to convene the conference. It may begin in July.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend say why our Government, the United Nations and the European Economic Community are not prepared to take the toughest economic and political sanctions against Vietnam and its Soviet backer to prevent the continuance of this barbaric trade in human beings?

Mr. Blaker: That is an important question, and I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give him a full answer now, but we are considering our position in relation to Vietnam. The United Nations High Commissioner, to whose efforts the Prime Minister has paid wholly merited tribute, has been making soundings on Dr. Waldheim's behalf. When I visited him on 18 June I was struck by the devotion with which he and his staff are tackling the problem. I understand that he has had many replies favourable to the proposed holding of a conference.
The High Commissioner has also sought further pledges of resettlement places, and funds, before the conference meets, to ensure that it succeeds in making a worthwhile contribution to improving the plight of the victims. Of the 500,000 refugees who have left Indo-China since 1975, about 200,000 have so far been resettled in 31 countries. The

High Commissioner is taking care of 160,000 refugees in Thailand and is sending 10,000 per month out of the area for permanent settlement.
We have always seen the task as to find practical solutions to the appalling problem posed by the exodus of refugees, but this aspect of the matter cannot be dealt with in isolation. The world community must ask itself why the exodus has happened. For the answer to this we must look to the callous means that Vietnam has employed in reorganising its social system—incidentally acquiring a profitable export trade in human misery.
We have made clear to the Vietnam Government our abhorrence of their behaviour and have urged many other countries to do likewise. This may have some effect in the longer term and the Vietnamese have recently shown some awareness of the need to be in touch with the Governments, in South-East Asia, of countries which have received the largest numbers of refugees. They have also agreed to work with the United Nations High Commissioner over the orderly emigration of people to be reunited with their families.
This, regrettably, will involve only a small fraction, perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 people in all, of the total number of refugees and will amount to only a few weeks' worth of boat people now leaving. So this agreement does not represent a very serious contribution to a solution, though so far as it goes it is a step forward.
We are not under any illusion that the Vietnamese authorities will easily change their attitude, but we must continue to try to get them to do so. How this can best be accomplished, whether by contact during a conference devoted mainly to securing help for the dispossessed, or in a separate forum, remains to be decided. The matter must mainly be Dr. Waldheim's responsibility since the conference will enjoy sponsorship by the United Nations. I leave my hon. Friend in no doubt, however, that we will not allow the responsibility of the Vietnamese authorities to go without comment, as we seek with others to deal with the appalling human misery that they have caused.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.